Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1977-05-16_COUNCIL MEETING
ROLLCALL NZ4UTES of April 18 and May 2, 1977, approved as submitted or corrected by motion of seconded by I. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Presentation by Manager and Engineer. .Spectators heard. If Council wishes to proceed, 415 favorable rollcall-vote to pass.; (Continued from April 18, 1977) A. Grading and Graveling Improvement No. P -C -124 - Amundson Ave. from Cahill Road to Dewey Hill Road B. Street Improvement No. P.:-BA-226 - Amundson Ave. from Cahill Rd. to Dewey Hill Road C. Grading & Graveling Improvement No. P -C -126 - Delaney Blvd. from Dewey Hill Road to W. 78th St. D. Street Improvement No. P -BA -227 - Delaney Blvd. from Dewey. Hill Road to W. 78th St. II. REPORTS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PLANNING I�fATTERS Affidavits of..Notice by Clerk. Presentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard. First Reading of Zon- ing Ordinances requires offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass Second Reading or if Second Reading should be waived. Lot Divisions, Plats, Declaration of Buildable Lots and Flood Plain Permits require 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass. A. McCauley Heights 7th Addition - Generally located East.of.McCauley Trail North of McCauley Lane and South of McCauley Circle (Continued from May 2, 1977 for Findings) 1. Preliminary Plat.- S -77 -3. B. McCauley heights 8th Addition - Generally Located South of McCauley Lane, North of Margaret's Lane and-East of County Road 18) 1. Preliminary Plat - S -77 -7 2. Rezoning from R -1 Residential District to R -2 Multiple Residential_ District to R -2 Multiple Residential - District - Z -11 -10 C. Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition — Generally located East of Lincoln Drive and West of Malibu Drive extended 1. Preliminary and Final Plat Approval - 5 -77 -2 2. Rezoning from R -4 Multiple Residential District to R -2 and R -4 Multiple Residential District and to R -1 Residential District - Z -77 -2 and Z -77 -4 3. Flood Plain Permit D. Lots 7 and 8 Griffis Subdivision of Block 18, Mendelssohn - 527 -529 Arthur. St. 1. Lot Division - LD -77 -8 III. AWARD OF BIDS Tabulation and recommendation by City Manager. Action. of Council by motion A. Watermain Improvements Nos. 314, 316 and 319 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of May 10, 1977 B. Fire Department Labor Negotiations C. Public Works Staffing D. Boards and Commissions E. Request for Easement - 4416 Vandervork Ave. F. Drainage and Utility Easement Vacation - Lot 15, Block 1, Lake Edina 3rd - Set Hearing Date G. Heritage Preservation Board - Edina Mills Project H. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items I. Chief Merfeld Retirement Party, - Thursday, May 19 6:30 P..M.. 0 May 16, 1977 Agenda Page Two V. ORDINANCES First Reading requires offering of Ordinance only. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass Second Reading. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass if Second Reading should be waived. A. First Reading 1. Ordinance No. 101 -A1 - Order of Business for Council Meetings (Continued from 5/2/77) VI. ANY OTHERS DESIRING TO BE HEARD BEFORE COUNCIL VII. FINANCE A. Claims paid. Motion of seconded by , for payment of the following claims as per pre -list: General Fund, $88,825.80; Park Fund, $13,637.55; Park Construction, $2,300.00; Swimming Pool, $1.,321.36; Golf Course, $17,962.54; Arena, $6,249.09; Gun Range, $244.12; Water Fund, $12,228.88; Sewer Fund, $71,792.98; Liquor Fund, $154,850.79; Construction Fund, $239,903.34; I.B.R. Fund, $46,077.94; Total, $655,394.39- TZR STTT.T c SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION - May 17, 1977 r- 0 ti Co o a .a O .4 .O O L 42 O ! PRECINCT 2. city Hall 37 3 36 4 �'� 42 3. Wooddale 137. 16 140 22 7•b 163 4. Mornin side 105 19 1 93 17 �•b 123 .5. Highlands 72 7 71 21. s'S� 92 6. Countryside 133 22 115 18 9 151 7. Normandale Luth.- 122 15 122 23. ?•3 148 Edina -East Lower 101 11 102 15 1 s' 3 122 8. Division Bldg. 1 • 9. Concord 99 16 90 11 s' 112 10. Creek Valley 93 18 88 .16 7. 113 11. Cahill 292 101 .165- 39 �4 323 Christ Presbyterian G�% 93 12. Church 77 10 74 13 13. Cornelia '79 22 87 21 L.$ 109 St. Peter's 14. Lutheran Church 72 - 11 58 6 3•! 82 Edina -West 15. Lower Div. Bldg. 75 33 75 12 �,,a. lOG Lutheran Church 16 1 12 4 ,0 8 18 17. of the Master Chapel Hills 64 7 51 10 �•/ 75 19. Church • TOTAL 11574 1 312 1379 252 1 �' 1872 r- DATE: TO: H @NN @PIN FROM` COUNTY SUBJECT: choose Patrolmen and detectives xx employed as of April 1, 1977, who Amm to not mmb,/participate in the Educational Incentive plan /shall receive, in accordance with Arbitration Award, Case No. 76- PN -829A, an additional $25.00 per month. if they have at least six years of service, mmdmmm After 14 years of service, such employees shall n be paid $25-00 per month more, or a total of $50.00 per month for longevity. No employee shall be ` eligible �jto receive Educational Incentive pay and longevity Pay. % L /Lp- GL- �-L� ��- ,�`swc _ -. a �. 4c b _a."Ll'-f /' / / --- ----------- __--- - - —... -- I�--- __ �:.— –'-n- -- -- � 2 -. _ Imo^-- �-=° _– _ �II_. V � ��_ ��Q���� a..� —. i "'._ ""7 I _ - n qI _ _ __ _ __— __— ___j - — -- I� ___— _ _ _ __ _.. __ _ _ _ _. _. -_ —_ ___ __ A� t s June 2, 1977 To: Edina City Council From: Mayor Van Valkenburg Attached is a copy of a letter to be sent to the members of the Edina Health Advisory Board. Does this letter reflect your wishes? JVV /md r 'Edina Health Advisory Board 1 -2- If at any time the Council can be of help to you or you have any concerns that you would like to discuss with them or with me, we are available for such meetings at your request. We want to thank all of you for your willingness to serve on this commission and I might indicate to you that the members selected on this commission were determined by analysis to attempt to obtain a fair representation of the City. Everyone of you called indicated a willingness to serve and I received no turn -downs to my requests for appointments to this commission. I appreciate that. The Council has read and is in agreement with the content of this letter. JVV /md enclosures P-S, It is my understanding that commission, although it was people have another suggest Yours truly, James Van Valkenburg. Mayor Dr. Rockwell is going to serve as Chairman of the agreed that if either he tires of it or if you ion for the long range, that is certainly agreeable. Incidentially, I have marked on the roster the length of term for each of the members of this commission and, of course, at the end of that time they are always subject to reappointment with your consent and that of the Council. Since the meeting, I have discussed with Dr. Rockwell the advisability and request of the Council that the Health Board determine somewhat its own scope of operation and I would request that they look into the health matters within the City and by that I refer to not only paramedic training and performance, but the Health and Sanitation Department, the Health Lab and, of course, the expenses in connection therewith. Since the meeting, I have also attended a meeting with officials from Fairview - Southdale and Methodists Hospitals, as well as Smith Ambulance. They are asking for financial support from the municipalities served and that was discussed and will be further analyzed. Bob Buresh and Craig Swanson were also in attendance and they will delve further into it with Warren Hyde and be back to the com- mission with comments and some information for your analysis and recommendation. M, TO THE EDINA HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD Ladies and Gentlemen: 4801 WEST FIFTIETH STREET - EDINA. MINNESOTA 55424 927 -8861 For.. your information, I am enclosing the following documents: 1. Roster of the Health Board. 2. A copy of the booklet that was presented to the Council outlining the entire program and the contracts executed at that time. 3. Budget overview. 4. Copy of the Ordinance. 5. Some of the monthly printouts that we have received since the plan has been in operation. 6. Some background on the program prepared by Ken Esse and June Schmidt. As I have indicated, by Statute and the City Ordinance, your group is advisory to the City Council. We want your advice and recommendations. Some of the areas that I am concerned with would be as follows: 1. Is the Ordinance as drawn adequate? 2. Is the Program and Contract with Bloomington.advantageous to the'City of Edina? 3. Is our present Paramedic Program working properly and are we getting value received? 4. Do you have any reaction to Senate File l? 5. Do you have any comments as to the present Contract, thru Bloomington, which is funded by Federal money serving the parochial schools nursing functions and only as a liasion to the public schools. I am not suggest- ing we get into the church -state argument, but rather to be concerned about the lack of assistance to the public schools. I hope that you will review the entire health situation within the City of Edina and if there are any comments on any part of it that you have, that they be directed to the Council. Actually, I would rather have the Advisory Health Board determine its direction and its recommendations for work in investigation and advise us of those preferences so they can be incorporated in an ordinance. I also enclose here a copy of By -Laws used by one of the other commissions and if they are of help to you in formulating your own, you are certainly free to use them. It is my understanding that you people prefer to meet on the first Tuesday of each 'month and the next meeting will be on July 5. I am suggesting 7:30 p.m. at this time and would suggest that hereafter you people would determine whether or not that time and day are agreeable to you. Ralph Campbell will serve as Staff person, taking.minutes of the meetings, and will together with Ken Essee serve as Staff for this Commission. W MARCH, 1977 i • LL CJA K OW N d N LL W Z} O K LL O O 2 W m F ,~+00 K OQ co W } W ' /-- N W N K O J W O N 1 W F- 2 W I- Y M C Z W W U N J C W K $ W _J a o Z C — d C Y W N W W N d O W F W W d Z N C Q (-• D Y O N GO J F_ K Co W O N t-- .-+ �-- UC'W O ti0 1-S CW K O F I}-a JOO y WO F-O QUG O 90F C. dK { QU 110 4116 Grimes 3/17 Thur 0845- Port.Color TV, $675. Sgl.Dwl. South Door None Unk None NIR1 NIR NIR No No C 1503 Port.B &W TV,Lamp, Jewelry 5 oo Zae at - s, Tool s, as n usiness ou atto r rest T ry oo rem. oc a No NIR i NIR No i No C 2300 220 5605 Woodcrest 3 Sat 000- U—sh,Wooden Box . Sgl.Dwl. South Basement Great Pry Tool Prem.Locked Yes NIR NIR No No C 2300 Window 220 5601 Woodcrest 3/26 Sat 335 None NA Sg I .Dw I . S. Basement Nomina n PreF LOC Fe d, NIR NIR NIR No A Window Res.Home INA mr 4545 Valley View- Sat 000- Battery Charger/ n erg n TO Sec.Garage Yes Not Visible NIR No I No 1030 Starter Garage 1 271 6415 Colony Way 3/22- Tues- 1800- CB $125. Att.Gar. NIR NIR NIR N R Unk No NIR NIR No I No C 3/23 Wed 0830 360 6996 France 3/8 Tues 0200- Cash 5 . Business N. . Garage Great _UnT__P_re`m.Lo_cFeT No NIR NIR. .No No C 0300 Door , 380 7101 France 3 23- Wed- 2015- Stereo ece ver, . Business A None Remained in Prem.Locked No NIR NIR No No C ; 3/24 Thur 0815 Tape Deck Bldg. After I Closingi 383 3112 W. 76th 3/9 Wed 1230- Color T ,Spea ers ,03 .Sg .Dw . Rear Door Trea t Wicked Prem.Locked No NIR NIR No 1 No C 1645 Dog Home 390 7330 Gallagher 3/6• Sun 0300- CB,Cassette $222. Undergd. Unk Unk None Unk Sec.Garage NIR Not Visiblq NIR INo No C ; 1400 Pla er,S eakers Garage 390 4101 Park awn 3/23- Wed- 1700- Auto Parts $13. Undergd. Un Unk None Unk Sec.Garage NIR Not Visible NIR I No 1 No C 3/24 Thur 0700 1 Garage I 390 4425 Parklawn Ct 3/28- Mon- 1900- Briefcase, $185. Undergd. Un Unk None Unk Sec.Garage NIR Not Visible NIR No i•No i C 3/29 Tues 0730 Printers,Tools Garage I I 391 4530 W. 77th,N200 3/26- Sat- Unk 8 -Track Stereo $150. Business Unk Door None Unk Prem.Locked NIR Not Visible NIR No tNo C 3/28 Mon i 1 410 4360 Brookside 9 Un Unk Jewe ry,S ver pt. a Door None Poss. Key Prem.Locked No --ffo—tVisible NIR No i No ! C l Ct, #209 3/15 Items Visible 4 0 620 nter achen 3 7- Thur- 1500- oo s us nness -Nor t Service Great ry oo Prem. oc a NIR NIR INo i No C 3/18 Fri 0630 Door 47T 5250 Villa ay - e - 30- Tools Furnace N oor None Unk Door _L RE Fe d 7 o Not 'si Me NIR No No C { 3/31 Thur 0830 Rm(Under . Gara e If 430 521 Arthur 3/26 Sat 0230 Port.Color TV Unk S21 South Window Great jBrick Prem.Locked No NIR NIR No No C 530 6072 Olinger Cir 3/19- Sat- Unk Cassette Dec 30. Att.Gar. NIR Door None Unk None Yes NIR NIR Yes No C 3/20 Sun Damage i 67b- 5300 W. 64th 3/19- Sat- Unk None NA Sgl.Dwl. I East Basemen Great Cutting Prem.Loc a No NIR NIR 1 No C 3/23 Wed Window Tool,Rock . �NA 620 55 3 Hi side Ct 3-7 TT Sun 0 00- CB 150. tt.Gar. NIR Service None n None No Not Vtst NIR No No C 0700 Door 4 621 5905 Lee Valley 3/7 Mon 0800- Shotguns,RTiff T es ,6 60F. -S g' .Dw . North Door Great rent Prem.Locked Yes NIR NIR I No No C Rd 1645 650 6204 Loch Moor Frt 0 - i ver Items, 6 Sg -'Rest Service None Unk Res. ome No NI NIR No No C 0630 Calculator,Purse Door ;12,391.+ I I INIR = Not In Rep rt. ; . 2NA = Not Applica le. i 1 I 1 III. New Business: EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 1, 1977 1. Presentation by Metro Council of Metropolitan Systems Statement -for City of Edina. Refer to: attached Systems Statement and revised population forecast. Approximately one month ago, the City of Edina received its preliminary Metropolitan Systems Statement from the Metropolitan Council. This draft Systems Statement is the first step in the metropolitan land planning process mandated in 1976. The total metropolitan planning process includes the fol- lowing steps: .1. Review of the enclosed System Statement draft by the local government unit and consultation with the Council staff. 2. Revision of the System Statement draft by Metropolitan Council staff if factual errors or differences need to be corrected. 3. Transmittal by the Metropolitan Council of the official System Statement for your jurisdiction (by July 1, 1977). 4. Local review and, if requested by the local unit within 60 days, a hearing on the official Statement in accordance with the reconciliation procedures • established in Section 7 of the Act. 5. Preparation of the local comprehensive plan, or amendment of an existing comprehensive plan, in fulfillment of the requirements in Section 9 of the Act. 6. Transmittal of the comprehensive plan to adjacent units of government and affected school districts for review and comment. 7. Transmittal of the comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council for review. .The preliminary Systems Statement contains three parts: I. Population, Employment, and Housing Projections. II. Analysis of Metropolitan Facilities, including Transportation, Airports, Waste Management, and Open Space. III. Exclusions. At this point in the process, municipalities are asked to review the pre- liminary Systems Statement for future errors, differences, and omissions. Fol -. lowing this review, municipalities are asked to forward comments through the Metropolitan Council for inclusion into a final Metropolitan Systems Statement which will be submitted to the municipalities in one or two months. Staff: has reviewed the preliminary.Systems Statment and makes the following comments: Edina Planning Commission (Systems Statement) Page 2 June 1, 1977 I. Population, Employment, and Housing Projections. Shortly.after receiving the draft Systems Statement, we also received re- vised population, employment, and housing forecasts from the Metropolitan Council. These new projections are attached to your staff report. The revised population projections indicate the peak population for Edina is 50,000 as compared to 55,000, which is noted in the Systems Statement. The revised household forecast indicates a maximum total of 20,400 units as compared to 22,150 units noted in the Systems Statement. Employment forecasts remain essentially unchanged. If the revised population household and employment forecasts are adopted by the Metropolitan Council, such revisions will be the basis for the comprehensive plan submitted by the City of Edina. Staff has no basis upon which to disagree with the revised forecast. II. Metropolitan Facilities. 7 A. Transportation. G Highways. Regarding analysis of T.H. 100, the Systems Statement indicates that a half- diamond interchange is proposed for West 66th Street .• Plans submitted to the City by the Department of Transportation indicate that no access is planned at this location. Regarding I494, staff believes that the section dealing with "timing of future improvements" should consider the timing of proposed access improvements at I494 and :France Avenue. Such access improvements are extremely critical to any planning considerations for the southeastern portion of Edina. Transit. The discussion regarding an intermodal transfer terminal in the vicinity of T.H.: 100 and CSAH 62 should be expanded and the plans solidified. B. Recreation Open Space. Regional Trails. In past occasions, staff has submitted comments to the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission regarding regional trails in Edina. As proposed on the Commission's preliminary trail plan, a regional. trail is contemplated along Minnehaha Creek through Edina. On several occasions, staff has noted .that.inadequate public ownership for the creek corridor prevents construction of a regional trails system in this location. We strongly. encourage the final trails plan to take this fact into consideration. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 PRELIMINARY METROPOLITAN SYSTEM STATEMENT CITY OF EDINA TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I Population, Employment, and Housing Need Projections Part II Metropolitan Facilities , , , . , , . . . . . . . A.- Transportation . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . B. Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Recreation Open. Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part III Comprehensive Plan Elements Which May Be Excluded • . . Metropolitan Council Staff Contact:. Terry Mills - 291 -6419 Page 1 3 4 14 16 24 25 PART I POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING PROJECTIONS The population, employment, and housing need forecasts for the City of Edina reflect basic assumptions and policies about re- gional growth contained in the Development Framework chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. From a Development Frame - work perspective, Edina is considered a fully developed community within the 1975 Metropolitan urban service area (see map c -2, pg.23) Table 1. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PROJECTIONS for the SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS SECTOR, INCLUDING EDINA ^SOU1 H MINNEAPOLIS SUBURBAN SECTOR POPULATION FORECASTS HOUSEHOLD FORECASTS EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS 1970 1976 1990 2000 1970 1976 1990 2000 1970 1990 2000 Rel:v Plaine 2.328 2,515 2,700 2.900 723 840 920 980 415 480 530 Rcllr Plaine Township 805 850 900 900 188 204 220 230 57 3 80 10 90 20 RlAkeley Township 565 81.970 584 79,119 600 93.000 650 92,500 131 21816 150 24,672 150 30,250 160 32,350 43,955 65.800 76,800 Rlownington Rnrnwille 19.940 32,582 63,400 76,000 4,876 10.082 20,850 25,400 2,808 20,800 25,800 Crrvlar Lake Township 1,051 1,354 1,450 1.550 200 311 330 360 0 4 10 10 10 20 Crrdit River Township 1,165 6,938 1,960 10.012 1,950 30.500 2,100 46,700 257 1,61153 479 2.821 530 10,300 590 15,900 3,306 16,500 22,000 UdenPrairie, Edina 44,046 48,325 55,000 54,000 13,002 16,667 21,500 22,150 22,060 41,100 46,100 Elko 115 135 150 150 42 410 60 70 56 90 100 Farmingtnn 3,104 4,306 5,000 5.900 057 1,333 1,600 2.200 680 1,350 1,750 Fort Srielling 624 429 450 450 105 71 100 100 14,888 22,400 23,200 Ilelpoa Township 1.156 1,150 1,250 1,300 250 276 270 280 40 60 80 70 120 Jackson Township 1,578 1,658 2.000 2,200 449 530 493 724 520 950 550 1,080 42 527 950 1,080 Jordan Lakeville 1,836 7,556 2,414 12,015 3.000 22,000 3,500 '32400 1,980. 3.367 7,300 10.900 1,143 4,000 6,200 Louisville. Township 519 670 700 750 98 163 180 200 8 20 30 New Market 215 260 250 300 70 91 100 110 20 50 60 New Market Township 1,236 1,586 1,500 1.500 382 401 616 430 930 440 1,070 0 488 10 900 20 1,020 New Prague' Prior Lake- 1,731 2,474 2,055 5,822 2,700 6,600 3.200 8,000 544 631 1,661 2,200 2,750 365 800 1,200 Richfield 47,231 43,952 43,700 42,500 14,797 14,883 15,000. 15,000 10,328 11,300 12,000 St. Lawrence. Township 388 433 450 450 99 107 130 140 0 10 20.' 20 Sand Creek Township 1,250 3,611 1,550 3.715 1,600 13,500 1,700 23,300 300 945 331 1,033 430 4,300 460 7,800 0 2,098 10 5,600 9,000 Sava!le. Shakopee- 7,716 10,065 16,300 22.700 2,068 2,924 5.450 7,850 3,260 8,300 13,700 Spring Lake, Township 2,684 2.209 2,800 2,900 069,_ 627 1,000 1,030 12 30 40 Total 243,832 271,725 373,450 430,500 68,062 85,737. 126,200 150,150 106,563. 200,750 241,000 portion in Scott County " 1970 ligures adjnsted to 1976 nrrnlraphic houndaries The projections shown in Table I are for your sector of the Metro politan Area. The projections were made beginning with a forecast for the entire seven- county area. Total areawide forecasts were then stepped down to smaller geographic areas, ending with forecasts for local governmental units. The forecasting methodology is des- cribed on page 60 of the.Development Framework chapter of the Pietro- poiitan Development Guide. The forecasts are not precise in the sense that they necessarily will be attained ' in-the year shown. Rather, they should be viewed as guides which express the antici- pated pattern of regional development. '. -1- The Council is using these ficftires for planning metropolitan facilities. A certain amount of variation.in community growth from the forecasts is natural and should be expected. The amount of variation that is consistent depends upon a number of factors. For Fully Developed Communities, growth in excess of the forecasts would be a problem only if there is not enough capacity in metro- politan facilities to accommodate it. Slower growth or household decline should be avoided if possible because this would result in under- utilized metropolitan investments. The Council's aim is for the city to maintain its neighborhoods and communities and to re- develop deteriorated areas in order to strengthen public.confidence in the liveability of older areas. Substantial variations between local growth assumptions and those listed here should be discussed and resolved early in the planning process. The projections were made in 1973. Since 1973, birth rates and household formation rates have continued to show slower Metro- politan Area growth than anticipated. Because of this, the Metro- politan Council will re- evaluate these forecasts this year to:see whether changes are necessary. If your community is affected by a significant change, you will be notified of it, and of any resulting changes in metropolitan system plans The household projections generally indicate the number of housing units expected to be needed to house future residents in your community. The acutal need for additonal housing units includes not only growth in households, but also new homes which may be needed to replace housing removed due to aging, blight, and disasters. The household projections for your community assume the provision of housing for a broad range of household incomes. In planning Edina's role in the provision of housing units, you should be aware that the Metropolitan Land Planning requires that each local comprehensive plan must specifically provide for suffi- cient existing and new housing to meet the community's share of the regional need for.1ow:and. moderate income housing. The ,plan must further contain an implementation program for carrying out the, housing objectives. Metropolitan Council policies empahasize planning for the provision of subsidized housing for low and moderate income persons as well as the provision of modest cost market -rate housing. To assist in achieving these objectives,. your housing implementation program should include programs for providing subsidized housing as well as codes and ordinances that permit.the construction of modest cost market -rate housing. Your plan should also identify the need for rehabilitation and redevelopment of substandard housing, if this is appropriate for your community. The plans and programs proposed by your community will be reviewed for consistency with Metropolitan Council adopted housing plans and policies. -2- PART II METROPOLITAN FACILITIES The following section describes existing and planned metropolitan facilities which affect Edina. The facilities are those which are specified metropolitan system plans as defined by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act'(MSA 473.175) and include.metropolitan highways and transit routes; .airports; wastewater treatment plants and sewage collection facilities; and metropolitan parks, park reserves and trails. The complete system plans on these subjects may be obtained from the Metropolitan Council. Each facility is described here by its character, location, function, projected capacity, timing, and conditions on use imposed by the Metropolitan Council. The purpose of these sections is to convey the specific elements of metropolitan system plans that affect your local planning and development decisions. The Land Planning Act provides that the local compprehensive plan "shall contain a discussion of the use of the pubi-ic.facilities specified in the metropolitan system statement..." and "must be in at least such detail as may be necessary to establish existing or potential effects.on or departures from metropolitan system plans and to protect metropolitan system plans ". The law further provides that the Metropolitan Council "may require a local governmental unit to modify any comprehensive plan or part thereof which may have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans ". In addition to the four metropolitan systems described in the following pages-,-the-Metropolitan Council has adopted other chapters of its Metropolitan Development Guide. They are Development Framework, Housing, Protection Open Space, Water Resources, Health, Law and. Justice, and Solid Waste. The law provides that the Council "shall. review and comment on the•apparerit consistency of the comprehensive plan and capital improvement programs with other adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide ". Therefore, communities should be advised to consult the entire Metropolitan Development Guide in formulating their plans. -3- A. TRAI J PORTATION The information in this section is derived from the Metropolitan Transportation Development Guide /Policy Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Council in January, 1976 and from information obtained from. the Minnesota Flighway Department. The Council's Policy Plan should be consulted when Edina prepares the transportation element of its comprehensive plan. This plan sets forth policies for how metropolitan transportation facilities should be used and further developed. Of particular importance to Edina. will be the policies focusing on °transportation within the Urban Service Area, including the Fully Developed Area policies. Highways The Transportation Policy Plan describes a.functional classification system for use by all counties and municipalities in the metropolitan area (Tables Al and A2). Those roads which function as principal and intermediate arterials .are considered to be the metropolitan highway system (Map Al). The following portions of the metropolitan highway system lie within transportation planning subregion 3 and affect Edina: CSAH 62 Crosstown (Existing) from TH 55 to CR 18 Character CSAH 62 is a fully controlled access, urban design freeway and with concrete pavement and paved shoulders. It has 4 through Conditions on lanes. Access is provided at TH 55, 34th Ave. , 28th Ave. , Use Cedar Ave. , Bloomington (partial) Portland, I -35W, Lyndale, Penn,--Xerxes,, France, Valley View Road (partial), TH 100, Tracy Ave. , Gleason Road and CR 18. Some access ramps` are metered. No additional access is planned at this time but future access will be provided only in conformance with Policy 32 of the Transportation Policy Plan. Function CSAH 62 functions as an intermediate arterial. The characteristics and planning standards for intermediate arterials are contained in the Transportation Policy Plan and on the attached chart. Timing of The Policy Plan places a high priority on upgrading the Future common section of the Crosstown and I -35W prior to 1990 Improvements The Policy Plan also calls for metering all ramps and installing special bus ramps Safety and other minor improvements, which are not normally reviewed by the Council, may also be made. -4- CSAH 18 (Existi,n9) from Excelsior Blvd. (CR3) to I -494 Character CSAH 18 is a 2 -lane undivided highway with uncontrolled and access from Excelsior Blvd. to 5th Street in Hopkins. Conditions on From 5th Street to I -494 it is a 4 -lane divided freeway Use with fully controlled access,. concrete pavement, and paved shoulders. The portion between Excelsior Blvd. and 5th Street has at -grade access at all street inter- sections. Freeway interchanges are located at 7th Street S. ; _ Dominick Drive, CSAH 62, Valley View Road (under construction) , and I -494. Function CSAH 18 functions as an intermediate arterial in the metropolitan highway system. The characteristics, access spacing standards , and other planning standards for intermediate •arterials. are contained .in the Metropolitan Transportation Policy Plan and on the attached chart. Timing of The portion between Excelsior Blvd. and 5th Street will Future be upgraded on new alignment as a 4 -lane freeway by 1980. Improvements TH 100 (Existing) from TH 7 to I -494 Character TH 100 is a 4 -lane divided expressway from , and TH 7 to CSAH 3 and from the Crosstown to . Conditions on West 74th St. The remainder of the segment Use is a 6 -lane divided freeway. TH 100 has concrete pavement and paved shoulders on the upgraded 6 -lane portion of the facility and bituminous pavement with unpaved shoulders on the 4 -lane portion. Access is fully con- trolled with interchanges existing at TH 7, CSAH 3, 50th St. /Vernon Ave.. /Eden. Ave., Benton Ave. (partial) CSAH 62, West 77th, and I -494 , and at grade intersections at. West 36th St., West 6.6th St., and West 70th St. These latter two will be replaced with interchanges (full diamond at W. 70th and half diamond at W. 66th) when this segment is upgraded. Function TH 100 functions as an intermediate arterial in the metropolitan highway system. The characteristics, access spacing' standards, and other planning' standards for intermediate arterials are contained in the Metropolitan Transportation Policy- -Plan and on the attached chart. -5- Timing of The Transportation> Policy Plan of the Metropolitan Future Improvements Council places a high priority on upgrading the portion of TH 100 from TH 7 to Excelsior Blvd . (CSAH 3) by 1980, The section between the Crosstown and W. 74th St, will be upgraded by 1980.. The 1990 Metropolitan Transit Plan indicates preferential transit treatment on this - s egment I -494 (Existing) from CR 18 to the Minnesota River Character I -494 is a 4 -lane divided freeway from CR 18 to and TH 100 and .has 6 lanes from TH 100 to TH 5, with Conditions on concrete pavement, 'paved shoulders, and fully Use controlled access. Interchanges are located at CR 18, East Bush Lake Road (partial), TH 100, France Avenue, Penn Avenue, I -35W, Lyndale Avenue, Nicollet Avenue, Portalnd Avenue (partial), 12th Avenue (partial), Cedar Avenue, 24th Avenue,. 34th Avenue, and TH 5. Function I -494 functions as a principal arterial in the metropolitan highway system. The characteristics, access spacing standards., and other planning standards for principal arterials are contained in the Metropolitan Transportation Policy Plan and on the attached chart, Timing The bridge across the Minnesota River, extending of I -494 beyond TH 5, is shown in the Metropolitan Future Council's Transportation Policy Plan as having a Improvements high priority for completion by 198.0. Planning Several improvements were indicated by the I -494/ Considerations 100 study, such as one -way frontage roads and interchange modifications for consideration in municipal plans. -6- Transit The Metropolitan Transportation Plan assumes that transit and paratransit. will play an increasingly important role in the regional transportation system by augmenting the capacity of the metropolitan highway system. To underscore this, the regional highway system has been planned for a vehicle occupancy of 1 .6 persons per vehicle in 1990 compared with 1.4 in 1970 in the peak hours. The Transportation Policy Plan contains a conceptual 1990 transit plan consisting of two parts service within sub - regions and express service to the Metro Center (Map A2). A specific transit plan for the metropolitan area, applying these concepts to actual service, will be prepared by the Metropolitan Transit Commission by the end of 1977 in its Development Program. Edina is in transportation planning subregion 3. The existing transit service in this subregion, which has not been analyzed for its consistency with the Policy Plan, is shown on Map A3. Existing bus service (routes and schedules) is not fixed, and Edina is encouraged to work with the MTC in changing this service, if necessary, to meet the objectives of the Policy Plan and the city. There are no major fixed transit facilities currently in Edina. The 1990 Metropolitan Transit Plan does show an intermodal transfer terminal in the vicinity of TH 100 and CSAH 62. However, this is still conceptual and no specific site has been chosen.. General Planning Considerations The capacity of the 1990 Metropolitan Highway System as planned in the Transportation Policy Plan is based upon,the population, household, and employment projections cited earlier in this system statement. These projections indicate that there will be a total of about 540100 person trips beginning or ending in Edina on a typical day in 199.0. All of these trips will use the local, collector and /or minor arterial system within Edina for at least a portion of the trip. Some of these trips will use this localized system only to reach the metropolitan system. However, over half of the trips with origins or destinations in subregion 3, which includes Edina, remain within the same subregion for the entire length of the trip. The Metropolitan Highway System is not planned to carry these s.ubregional trips. The Transportation Policy Plan assumes that Edina, in conjunction with neighboring municipalities and the county, will plan an adequate system of local streets, collectors and minor arterials to accommodate all of these trips. A map of the functional classification system in Edina, as adopted by the Metropolitan Council and its Transportation Advisory Board, is attached for your information (Map A4) . Requests for revisions of this map should be addressed to the Transportation Advisory Board. Additional information about these facilities may be obtained from the agency of jurisdiction. To analyze the impact of Edina's land use plan on the Metropolitan Highway System, the Council will need to receive population, household, and employment data from Edina by traffic assignment zone at the time the city's. comprehensive plan is submitted for review. A map of traffic assignment zones will be sent in a .later. communication. In addition to those issues discussed previously under specific highway segments, Edina should recognize in its planning the 494/100 Southdale Study. TABLE A I FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CRITERIA FOR ROADWAYS tt� J ma T� Principal intermediate Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local = ;.essibitity Focus Connects aH urban Connects two or more Connects adjacent'— and Connects neighbor - -- hoods within and be- Connects blocks within neighbor - subregions with one another connects subregions: provides subregions secondary connections activity centers tween subregions. hoods and specific activities within urban and rural service outstate: complements within subregions. eneos lend - areas with Metro primary arterials in use ar eas. use areas. Centers: connection high volume corridors. =vet of Mobility to outstate cities. Provide high level Provide Provides high level Provides mobility between Mobility between neighborhoods and Mobility within neighborhoods and or ry within Urban and Rural or mobility within and between subregions. within and two subregions. other land uses Service Areas and to land use areas.eous ,v stem Access major outstate cities To other principal ar- To principal arterials, 7o principal arterials. intermediate arterials, To minor arterials. other collectors, To collectors, other local streets, land terials, intermediate arterials, and select - other intermediate arterials, minor arterials, other minor arterials, local streets, lend access. ed minor arterials: no. and high volume and collectors. access. direct land access. collectors: no direct restricted direct land access land access. except major traffic no- Making Long trips at highest generators. Medium- distance to Medium -to -short trips Primarily serves and distri- Almost exclusively collection and Service Performed speed within and through the Metro tong trips at higher speed within the at moderate -to -lower speeds: local transit collector bueroinalsfunction trips ion; short Area. Express transit urban area. Express trip& at low Speeds' local transit at speeds. gips. transit trips fps, tt� J ma T� TABLE A 2 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS FOR ROADWAYS Principal - - -- Arterial lntermedlate Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Spacing 3.8 miles depending 1 -3 miles depending 0.5.2.0 0.25 -1.0 1 block on trip density, transit on spacing of princi- miles. miles. System Mileage minor arterial spacing, pal arterials and minor arteriab and intermediate erterials combined: and transit in peak Urban 10 per cent Vocation of existing ' arterials, transit, trip Per cent of Travel Suggested federal limitations for principal (VMT) facilities. density, and location 40-65 per cent of existing facilities. Location In natural community In natural community On edges of On edges or Within neigh- separations defining separations defining development within borhoods and development and not developments and not and neighbor- neighborhoods. other homo- separating it. separating it hoods. genous land Land Access Urban Rural Intersection Characteristics _ Parking None. None. Grade separated (urban) Or high capacity controlled at grade inter- sections (rural). None. Maor traffic generators. Freestanding Growth Centers and Rural Town Centers. Grade separated or high - capacity con- trolled at -grade intersections. None. Large trucks No restriction.. No restriction. Management tools Ramp metering, -Ramp metering, traffic Urban 45 -55 traffic signal timing, signal timing, staging speed limit . no land access, of reconstruction, land preferential treatment access spacing. 300' for transit, Transit ' interchange spacing. System Mileage Suggested federal upper limits for principal where needed: arteriab and intermediate erterials combined: and transit in peak Urban 10 per cent Rural 4 per cent Per cent of Travel Suggested federal limitations for principal (VMT) arterials and intermediate arterials combined: 40-65 per cent Vehicles carried Urban 20.000- 100.000 Limited direct land access. Commercial. industrial, and high- density residential uses. No access to single family use. Traffic sig- nals and cross street stops. Restricted as necessary. Restricted as necessary. Traffic signal timing, land access spacing, preferential treatment for transit. Suggested federal limitations for principal arterials, intermediate arterials, and minor arterials combined: Urban 15 -25%. Rural 8 -12% Suggested federal . . limitations for principal arterials. Intermediate arterials. and minor arterials combined: 65.80% 5.000. 30,000 1,000.10.000 35-45 Legal limit 66' -150' Preferential treatment where needed in activity centers: bus pullouts where required based on percentage and traffic volumes. —9— Some limitation on direct land access - Access to agricultural uses with limits on low- density residential. 4 -way stops and some traffic sig- nals. Loop street stops. Restricted as necessary. Restricted as necessary Continuity, number of lanes, traffic signal timing, land access. use areas. Direct access. Direct land access. As required. Unrestricted. Permitted as necessary. Stop signs, cui-de -sacs, diverters. Suggested federal Suggested federal Ilmitations'Urban limitations: Urban 5 -10 %. Rural 20 -35% 65 -80 %, Rural 63 -75% Suggested limitations: Suggested federal 5.10% limitations: 10 -30% 1.000. 15.000 250 -2,500 30.40 35 -45 66' -100' Pavement, in- tersections, and bus stops designed for use by regular transit buses. 1,000 1,000 Maximum 30 Maximum 30 50' -80' Normally used as regional bus routes only in non- residential areas: used as required for specialized 7ansit service with smaller vehicles in residential areas. Rural 5,000.50,000 Posted Urban 45 -55 speed limit . Rural Legal limit Right -of -way 300' 100' -300' Transit Priority lo high Preferential treatment Accommodations occupancy vehicles where needed: and transit in peak bus stops separated periods. from through traffic lanes. • Limited direct land access. Commercial. industrial, and high- density residential uses. No access to single family use. Traffic sig- nals and cross street stops. Restricted as necessary. Restricted as necessary. Traffic signal timing, land access spacing, preferential treatment for transit. Suggested federal limitations for principal arterials, intermediate arterials, and minor arterials combined: Urban 15 -25%. Rural 8 -12% Suggested federal . . limitations for principal arterials. Intermediate arterials. and minor arterials combined: 65.80% 5.000. 30,000 1,000.10.000 35-45 Legal limit 66' -150' Preferential treatment where needed in activity centers: bus pullouts where required based on percentage and traffic volumes. —9— Some limitation on direct land access - Access to agricultural uses with limits on low- density residential. 4 -way stops and some traffic sig- nals. Loop street stops. Restricted as necessary. Restricted as necessary Continuity, number of lanes, traffic signal timing, land access. use areas. Direct access. Direct land access. As required. Unrestricted. Permitted as necessary. Stop signs, cui-de -sacs, diverters. Suggested federal Suggested federal Ilmitations'Urban limitations: Urban 5 -10 %. Rural 20 -35% 65 -80 %, Rural 63 -75% Suggested limitations: Suggested federal 5.10% limitations: 10 -30% 1.000. 15.000 250 -2,500 30.40 35 -45 66' -100' Pavement, in- tersections, and bus stops designed for use by regular transit buses. 1,000 1,000 Maximum 30 Maximum 30 50' -80' Normally used as regional bus routes only in non- residential areas: used as required for specialized 7ansit service with smaller vehicles in residential areas. 1 ST.r\er -II It7IlL 1 • � I I I LINW000 I 1 r SITMIL - BURNS i OAK GROVE - -- - •�� Principal Arterial (General Alignment) ...� Intermediate Arterial (General Alignment) 10. COLUMBUS 00 ANOK A .0 Reserved Right-of-Way (Final location ■•AIR9 ....•lE 'N.ruu � 'A", {E,� not determined! - _ ►Dear .t sW I I SCANOIA - ' FOREST 411E I - 6S I I wash DATTOR ■A tool 3 rAI1RS, CMAr IN CO &PIGS { ILAIOS �,,fyAj�C[ 911,11.1.1 - 3Sw '••r wuca _ NA.OV1 tuaT 1 Cl■CLE PINES 0400.0 loae0• WASHINGTON CO. ��._ .. _ _- 00_00_. -_... _.. - ••J 11' f — .i- -�— GRSI. /I! ►D COSCOSAq tl two/CVllN Alll LOVE _11 wOYh V Yla■ 7 I o NOITM . � /•OOKl7. r•Ra1 f II OAEf � ST1llMATER 11 1J4', IT SIA■ Dcvaes ' rlmL z 044 HEN14EPIN CO. IOCILT Np � GRANT C;LORITT� S5 i. iF, 7T. L 0-- Agot. 2S 2J+• -029tT AT! (�rtDINA It1N TIT I.D.. l�C! l.'; — 13 7C 91 . .oA vovfw I +Plt n.1.' e � � ii6llLlya � .�1 Ids B. 1 t GOLD 1� 1 tT Arltr000 `--BOA •L{ LA R! SAYTOwN E VI°14>a R..\ I llro� I... CA. � _ � 'NEST � E' — `•A RA EY CO. I 94 LAKELAND olo.o /'� .. .. I 0�1ATt RTO ■K _ L 1 rlRr[T IISU / •i M1/ 170.RA 1T. too 4 I _ LAV N HOLLYWOOD I WArEarOWN I rauKo — 'f �• �.�0 S [IIN.r 7 ��� fr. uoI■ n.eN•` �,�,�✓ r 0000 1 — — 1 {oM1OA(luey %� _ s 1 PA ui l' AFTON Af �gErl G[i MARY % 69 _ �(r Nn[LD �AI!i= t-' rCF rA '7 •r it - - � / /i "/ �� 9 9 tNA.MAa {1A M[I T7 SU t L � CAMDEN I WACONIA LAKETO'NN PRAIRIE `� J, • ' ST.. Yl VACON4A - Y AR I I 64.00MIK ON V SC INV[I6 It L - - -�- I CNASKA CARVER CO. C�. I G4� "SIGN COTTA�(G�RO�Tf� OENMAgR . 1 20 TOURG I I �� C!RlIfOT'A WIC I_ •``/, .. TIC. J^• 4 . \1fRl,�i �l ■ \• 9\ \OR Sj Ar000`j. CA.V[. 1 - COtOGM OAMLGAEN fAVAa{ 212 --� I TOUNG AMERICA L EN TON I L-- - PRIOR APPIt V.LLET .011-4311-1 ....00R ISVILLI LAKE , HASTI.Ga --------- } - - - --� D ! COCK MAN I IAN FRANCISCO L I I I I I VCRMIll10N i• IAAVCN NAI IANO CREEN I SPRING LAME I CREDIT . AN[Vltu CPI 1 ❑ I MARSHA" `1 ArVER ¢ ` ® ►u CO. rlatiOO I VC■rILUON . ST - NENCIE ton" SCOTT -7 7. _ -L _ 3 - - - -1- -- _ - - - -- -}-� SELLS PLAINS NEW MARKET I I I iJ ■(Y TRISS PAN • I 1II��J 1 BIA. T I BELIE FLAINC I »ELENA CEDAR LAKE - I Nall WARN[} 1 EUREKA I CASTLE AOCK I I rttl�ill H I DOUGLAS S . t• ROAN "rtE3 S 10 as 20 23 I .GREENVALE ' IWATIRPORO — SCIOrA� TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA 1990. METROPOLITAN HIGHWAY SYSTEM PLAN 1 7P.1.a PALE. 9 VICTORIA 17 FALCON:916NTS 23 a10 L1Kt - - 2 040.0 10 10 1NSDAlI 14 ■1400TH 2/ ARC M \000 - S NI..I70KKA It AC. 11 11.1.0 LA.[ PARK 19 LILTOALS - 27 ..,r[ BEAR - —uYMA County Boundary 4 TON.A IAT 12 V. 8. 00VT. - 20 GRCY CLOUO 2R SATPCAf 0110 Municipal - S aKC [LSIOR 1] NIIITOP 11 ULL All 29 WILL&KA,1 Municipal Boundary 1 0111 A.000 1A COLUMIIA OUGHTS 22 O[110000 20 OAK PAIR IltIINTI 7 ROOOLAND IS IT. ARTHORT 22 PINS SPRINGS 21 LAKELA.D 1.0618 - —� - -- Township Boundary a KIDICINK TARE 14 LAUDIAOALI 24 71.M Tom IDI - 22 ST, SI ►0141 - -10- .� Express Service to Metro Center sr.rR.NTIs 1 ' I®Intermodal Transfer Terminal (Conceptual) uNw000 BA LT 89THIL I O>ANA— Subregions . - ll BURNS i 10 aGROVE Subregional Transit Service Areas. 1 I� I 1 9 Predominantly Fixed-Route Transit' r- iq I ANOKA CO. . COLUMBUS ���`'' 3e9� Predominantly Demand - Responsive Transit a.tlsal . ■DenB r.rlARl roa7r.uRL" I New SCANOIA .. - I FOREST URC I - 0 Freestanding Growth Center I. 'M. NOU.... ANIS _ I Vii• - l9 / Metro Centers - - •. - A I� LINO LALt7 �d N . CRA. LI COO" RAItOa lVILLI MAY "• "oru Y 11X1RGr. A!tt[ Pigs WASHINGTON CO. _ m so T7[o onnE. -r - - -- 1 rO,:aa!'e_1 1i� j� CONCORA■ rAFASOTI rely ■TM 17 �i -P I STILLWAT[R ' flr" ►Ala �.Rf .rlTl r[A. \ll I _- -- - OCRFOCO .., #,AID T AC i ;'- GRAN? - HENNEPIN C4• - f +oonTR -.. ONAItGw�s;i-a I. IGNTS ON _ON 1 7T AT (QSTAL I IDLONITTO - - 1 ' � N[. LA -'T7 30 11101 "A R7°lYOYrN o. q S Li. jr �y 1 IrOlrlrOlRCt % ' �/ I� .N.1pA •07YN 1 63 ![MILL[ I I MA-�I - [ Ol N E M"1M ° 0•ER1PI S .11 BAYTOW- N KE PLAIN O.II il 1,4 AIL •000 Gr 16 17 r REST l oN� "K UEUNO 1 ��AM E CO. LAR[1.R0"; r AfIRTO.R /��,,y Y1N09TO11 t. f1. 10Y 7 - 1 tlIRN[Tf177{� �>� �ji /i // 7 r. IN MIM [• U. .m .. /.. , HOLLYWOOD w•rERMwM. I RIC; 0111`014V ER aryl L� _ LT. C101i [LA N• I Is .J1T - .000Muir I,rt -J�1 , U,12! «i` ! �- ®a. e ArtoR Lr1� - -- Ar[■ - - -,,; L f 1 a 1 FIELD :uroli! rENt r. I uN 1 1' wr AT j. IIIIfMANr I i , ✓ i I �6'YyT- • iii• w[•Q I's I - E ST. JL uMya I WACOwu LAAETO.rN *Oa. roll % r. N./ I.CORIA I , % [LOOMING I vAl VE of".,j I C,IAfRi ` ` %[ AR MUGN COT [ GRy[ DENMARK I CARVER CO. i O 2 - - - -- - --• -- - - -- CwASNA ` DAKOTJ CO. I ! Rol.00D � II uar[, I JACKSON r wu 1`1.4 ColGa.5 OANIGREN tiv•at . 1 _ I �� A!KI VALLEY ROt[rO, Yrr N1NINGER YOUNG AMERICA SENTON rno! NAS�s Deb I I r LOUISVILLE LARI A - - -r- i 1 I SAN FRANCISCO I� I VEPMILLION I IRAVENNA w.N000K I tAC[ I � s.NO C �} CREDIr' ` L.1Rtrrllf CMFRE I i I I K•RSN.N I -� -� I S RE[R srltSo"" I I 1 I Vto...il."Or IIN�IJ~r I I Rw [R (� rAJrUNTOO I 1 SCOTT CO. 1 ST. L•w.E110El IORRAN - I —�� ' ---- 1--- - - -L -- ' -_.� BULK PLAIN rRll. TR1t■ I I I NEW MAN"tT - NCItNA CEDAR U "C , tW ERA I CASTLE ROCK MA. ON 1 rltErllLEl BURhR I BELIE ►DINE I IRav MA ■RR I I I - I I _ iA I I HAMPTON I 0 OUGl13 L.Ra i�R.NO 0LIPI iiT10M MILES S LO - - is 20 23 I GRECNVALE ;WATERFORD V SCIOTA I J . 1 I I J TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA - -' 1990 TRANSIT PLAN 1 SIRING PARR I VICTORIA 17 FALCON NRIGMTS 21 GIN ;ARC 7 OlORO to ROaa1NfDAlL LB "1"001. 2a IISCNM000 ANOIS.> County Boundary - 3 M11011ONRA $JACK lI Ir RING TARE IAI[ l9 LIL1OAll 27 Ww1TE BEAR - a T..Kl ... 12 G.TT, 20 GREY :LOUD 2l SATPO AT RONO Municipal Boundary S tlCtl110C 13 RILLTOP 21 LAADr.LL 21 .ILIt RNI[ O CIl /11.000 14 COLYNSIA RCIONTS 22 0 L.000 .30 OA[ P4aR N[IOMft - �AMO��--Townshi Boundary - 7 .000LA -0 l3 IS. AN /NO RT 23 IIR1 1111 "GS 31 LA[JLAPO INONIS p -' - - -- O- MLDICIRJ LAKE 1G. LAVOINDALA _ 24 MAK100901 32 IT. MANY'$POINT - - -11- TWIN CITIES Map A 3 METROPOLITAN AREA BUS ROUTES 14 • 1975 1 35-- 10 PLYRAOUTP4 19 O ' / zrw• »(L Transportation Subregions 26 19 28 Nq 20 4 REGULAR SERVfCE-----A.9mm 70 A EXPRESS SERVCE 3 SUBURBAN OPERATORS 20 ------ 51 LONG LAI(k 2 sl C. AK ..... ETONKA • It souls PARK X. ........... DG t 27 .............. .......... . ................ 18 aaa •. ............... ......... 22 • al O . . ........ 17 23 .... .. .... • ...... 9 20 .......... ....... 12 3S 6 S.............. ......... ........ ... ........ .. 0 4' ................ 6 • ........... ......... 17 ••• a a •W.." 36 , 9 eve 35 4s- X ...... M. 35 A A 35 7� CHANHASSEN O f� SY ,fn3. T5 s 6 • • • i n�3 -9.. ilic 111 8 _:Goes** •00 35 3 *se• 5 ENPRAIRIE T Nose*@ so 4t • (k4-). .. �. : . A'I'D; i *00 0*4* IX • �4 7, I .• r 004 0 .. % J4 j is*:* G—... �4 7) & to 0. • JONAYMAN at sooese el Is 4 a 0 , sea 8 .00notooz W (i7t EDINA - MAP A 4 1990 FUNCTIONAL .CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM w.a. Principal Arterial Intermediate Arterial �• -� Minor Arterial Collector -13- • i B. AIRPORTS The information in this section is based on Minnesota Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division Rules and Regulations. The existing Airports chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide contains a plan for a system of airports in the Metropolitan Area , but due to recent changes ill air travel demand and airport needs , the chapter will be revised during 1977. When a new Airports chapter is adopter] by the Metropolitan Council, information about the planned airport system that may affect - Edina will be sent to you. If the information is forwarded to you before January 1, 1978, it must be reflected in your comprehensive plan, as stipulated in Section G of the Land Planning Act. Facilities There are no airports , proposed airport sites, search areas, or other related facilities located in Edi na (Map B 1) . General Planning Considerations Even though there are no aviation facilities located in Edina - , any development affecting navigation airspace within t17e community is subject to Minnesota Department of Transportation, aeronautics regulations, Aero 9 (Criteria for Determining' Obstructions to Air Navigation) . A -14- r�lr% - -- --------1 - t I HAM LAKE SF GftOvJ Y. `��l q 1 _ - ---- ----- -----r --- -- - -- --- - - - -- A,, ka r ' E3unl er Prairie Rogers r \ I l Daytun I \'_ + �. I I I - - - - -- I c , Park oon Rapid, ' r HASSAN l I Blaine r - - - -- 1 I cha plin _ 1 over - - -T --- ----- - -- 1 . Fla n - - -T_ 4 I alt. , A lJ I1. _.. .. I �: MaplrlGrove `[ — �•- IOsseo L- Greenfield i Corcora 1 O Brooklyn Park S' �Pa k• a ounds - -_ ew `- I 1 I 1 1Roakf —1 1 ' L ��— I i Fridl 1 1 � ' } 8 nklynr \enter I - - - - -_- _ -- _---- 1f- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -" _ -_ _ - - -__ _ .v Ne _ HE NEPIN '� -- I, - Brighton 1 L Loretto F ETA AI (�'�P�' 1 Cry at r_ Jolu nbla, New _ He Ihls *'E ,¢•',; ,,., 's. ��`i L u Medina I I r� hon o Inde ndence I j Plym th 13) ele I F� t .� ,•. •i I Maple Plar_n ------ L__1 i RI". - ; �i�!� _ ; _ __________- _- __ -_____ Medi 1 _ �a r ilco en ,'ar:1} ,1�,, lake Valle _yFiy lrl• „. Long ✓f'; :°------ -- --- -- a z a ------ ---- - - - -i- r -' I 'Sti }q-?\S.r {f7,' ��•7r P• s o:! 71 I [ Y .I. f, I Orono „) I Minnetrista °> I Minn i olis Wo d and k Parr s 1 I du nHL �' etonka J--T 1 1 $Piing S ch 'AWN ' I PaTc DeeP�a en Min •tonka � I I � r_ I Ho ins___J_ I O I I - , r �I r- -t � �� T8n Gre ` � 5 St. Bonifacius COS rj ru , Lti - 41 Shorewood _— - - - - - - - - -_---- --- --- Edina -�- ._ /Richfield Victoria 1�1 1 ' •1...,.r I I I _ _ Chanhassen - - --__- I� PLS.— ' 1 r Eden Pralre 1 LAKETO'A /N � - -' �_ j `_� [� c � r• � 1 I TER JT 0 1�' WaC011`ly w (� Cl L'1 roj �j ) S V O = Ch1 Al1.1 ' Q VER II Bloom ngton w. � 1 Cha ka � �rJF Y1 LORD ILR PGa I E.J, „r Lr o n V 1 AS KAi I Ll� + -_� Shakopee I { I - / Ca .r .IACKSON 1 I I � --- --- --- - )N Cot ne I DA) LGREN Savage 1 purr vllle �/ apple 1 ti 1 Valley L LC. 11SVILLE K , -I Prior Lake 1 �— - �. u�.l.�i_ �:�ji.l (L�.ti:, .. I��'G.,'_,ft9 •I• 3 I G� 1 ---- -_-" _- SV If O 'CK 's��:C�:.`�•+1 �'.7}`..',•b�.l;:a��:. /"�, Al - � n I I � 1 _ C. WASTE MANAGEMENT Information in this section is based upon the Waste Management Policy Plan /Development Guide, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's 1977 -81 Development Program, and the,MWCC Capital Budget. The Devel- opment Guide should be .consulted when Edina develops the .sewer element of its comprehensive plan. of particular importance to Edina will-be the Guide policies related to waste management in the Urban Service Area. Metropolitan Interceptors and Treatment Plants Based on the forecasts of population, households, and employment adopted in the Metropolitan Development Framework and the Waste.Management Policy. Plan for Edina.,__the_ total__a_v_e- rage_dai_ly flow_ in 199_0__is_ planned to be 7.88.million gallons per day (mgd); this is based on anticipated.flow from industry of 0.0 mgd and a sewered residential population of 55,000. The Council and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) will use these population and sewage flow forecasts to plan for all future treatment works or interceptors needed to serve your community. Edina must through its comprehensive planning process decide the location and staging of development and then design its local collection system to serve this development. If you plan a total community,flow in excess of 7.88 mgd, your assumptions will be analyzed by the Council for their possible adverse effects upon the capacity of the metropolitan disposal system. Adverse effects would result from constrictions in.downstream interceptors, overload of lift stations or treatment plants, impact on planned flow from neighboring communities, or other conditions. In the following descriptions of metropolitan interceptors, the ultimate capacity available to your community in a particular interceptor may not be stated at this time. This capacity has not been determined yet. It.will be determined in the course of a 201 Facilities Planning.Study being undertaken by the.MWCC and scheduled to be finished in 1979. Ultimate capacity in an interceptor is difficult to determine due to various constructions in downstream sections of the metropolitan interceptor system and the use of the same interceptor by a large number of communities. In developing your community's plan, you should contact the Council or the MWCC concerning capacity available to.you on specific interceptors. Map C -1 shows the location of metropolitan facilities serving your community. Minneapolis Interceptors 1 -MN -342 (Existing) Character and This interceptor built in 1930 is a 9" circular Location clay pipe that begins at the Edina boundary at 42nd Street and France Avenue and extends north- erly to 39th and Drew Avenue when as a 15" pipe it intersects with. Minneapolis interceptor. (1- MN- 3.41). Ultimate destination is the MWWTP at Pig''s Eye. -16- Function This int,11r.ceptor provi'de's metropolitan waste disposal service for the Morningside Area in northeastern Edina. Capacity The exact ultimate capacity of this interceptor. and when it will be available are dependent upon downstream conditions of the interceptor or available capacity at the treatment plant. The 201 study previously mentioned will provide some of this , information. Timing This interceptor is in place and available for. use by the City of -Edina. Minneapolis Interceptor 1 -MN -343 (Existing) Character and This interceptor built in 1925 is a 9" circular Location clay pipe that begins at the Edina boundary near 44th and France Avenue and extends easterly to Drew Avenue, then on 43rd to Xerxes Avenue. It then proceeds northerly to intersect (now as a 33" clay,tunnel) the Minneapolis interceptor (1 -MN -341) at 38th Street and Xerxes Avenue. Ultimate destination is the MWWTP at.Pig's Eye. Function This interceptor provides metropolitan waste disposal service .for.the northeast section of Edina. Capacity The exact ultimate capacity of this interceptor and when it will be available are dependent upon downstream conditions of the interceptor or available capacity at the treatment plant. Thp 201 study previously mentioned will provide some of this information. Timing This interceptor -is in place and available-for use by the City of Edina. Minneapolis Interceptor 1 -MN -344 (Existing) Character and This interceptor built in sections from 1924- Location 35 is a 9" circular clay pipe that begins at the Edina boundary at 49th Street and France Avenue and extends northeasterly to Harriet Lake and proceeds around the southern part of the lake on Lake Harriet Boulevard to 48th and south to the Minnehaha Creek near 51st and Humboldt Avenue. From here it proceeds easterly along the Minnehah" Creek (Minnehaha trunk sewer) increasing in size to become a 3 ft. by 6 ft, clay tunnel, where it Joins Minneapolis interceptor (1 -MN -340) at Hiawatha Avenue and Minnehaha Parkway. Ultimate destination is.the MWWTP at Pig's Eye. -17- Function This interceptor provides metropolitan waste water disposal service.for.the City of Edina and the City of Minneapolis. Capacity The exact ultimate capacity of this interceptor and when it will be available are dependent upon downstream conditions of the interceptor. or available capacity at the treatment plant.. The 201 study previously mentioned will- provide some of this.information. Timing The interceptor is in place and available for use by the City of Edina. Minneapolis Int- erceptor l -MN -345 (F:;islLing) Character and This interceptor built in sections from 1929 -39 Location is a 24" circular clay pipe that begins at the Edina boundary at Xerxes and 54th Street and extends eastward along the Minnehaha Creek to 51st and Humboldt Avenue where it joins the Minneapolis interceptor (1- MN- 344). Ultimate destination is the MWWTP at Pig's Eye. Function This interceptor is providing metropolitan waste- water disposal service for the City of Edina. Capacity The exact ultimate capacity of this interceptor and when it will be available are dependent upon downstream conditions of the interceptor or available capacity at the treatment plant. The 201 study previously mentioned will provide some of this information. Timing The interceptor is in place and available for use by the City of Edina. Richfield Interceptor 1 -RF -490 (Existing) Character and This is a 15" circular R.C.P. gravity interceptor Location built in 1953. It begins at the Edina boundary line at 65th and Xerxes and it extends easterly to I.S -3511, where as a 30" pipe at 66th Street . it continues easterly to 11th Street, north to 63rd and easterly to the City boundary at the Metropolitan Airport where as a 48" pipe it joins the Minneapolis interceptor (1 -MN -346) at 62nd and 26th Avenue. The wastewaters proceed through the joint interceptor (1 -MS -100) to MWWTP at Pig's Eye. Function This interceptor provides metropolitan waste disposal service for a small portion of Edina west of the Fairview- Southdate Hospital and medical center, as well as the northern one- half of Richfield. Secondary treatment is provided at MWWTP. Capacity The exact, ultimate capacity of this interceptor and when it will:be available are dependent upon downstream conditions of the interceptor or available capacity at the treatment plant. The 201 study previously mentioned will provide some of this information. Timing This interceptor is..in place and available for use by the City of Edina. Richfield Interceptor 1-RF -491 (Existing) Character and This is a 33" circular R.C.P. gravity interceptor Location built in 1953. It begins at the Edina boundary line at Xerxes and 75th Street and extends east- erly on 75th and 76th to Blaisdell Avenue where it continues northerly as a 42" R.C.P. to 73rd and easterly to Chicago Avenue, northerly to joint the metropolitan interceptor (1 -RF -490) at 66th Street and Columbus Avenue South. Function This interceptor provides metropolitan waste disposal service for the S.E. portion of Edina and the sourthern one -half of Richfield." Capacity The exact ultimate capacity of this interceptor and when it will be available are dependent upon downstream conditions of the interceptor or available capacity at the treatment plant. The 201 study previously mentioned will provide some of this information. Timing This interceptor is in place and available for use by the City of Edina. Bloomington Interceptor 3 -BN -4.96 (Existing) Character and This facility consists of approximately 7.5 miles Location of 10" - 48" gravity pipe including approximately 4,000 feet of 8 and 12 inch forcemain. It was constructed in four separate stages in the 1960 to 1967. It extends from metropolitan _period ,interceptor MSB 7031 in west.and northwest direction to a connection with Edina-trunk sewer near Viking Drive and Computer Avenue. Flow will be treated at the Seneca WTP.- . Function This interceptor provides metropolitan waste disposal service for about 78 acres of land in southeastern Edina. Capacity The exact ultimate capacity of this interceptor and when it will be available are dependent upon downstream conditions of the interceptor or available capacity at the-treatment plant. The 201 study previously mentioned will provide some of this information. -19- Timing This interceptor is in place and in use. Planning On January 27, 1977, the Council authorized the Considerations MWCC to acquire this.facility from the City of Bloomington. Seneca Wastewater Treatment Plant MSB -7002 (Existing) Character and The Seneca Treatment Plant is classified as Location a - "complete" treatment facility including primary classification activated sludge biological treatment, secondary clarification, solids dewatering and sludge incineration.. The plant is located on the south side of the Minn - esota River.in Eagan. Function The.facility mainly provides sewage treatment. for the cities at Burnsville, Bloomington and Eagan. Capacity The present configuration of the plant provides an average flow capacity of 24 MGD. Timing This treatment plant is in operation. Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant (Existing) Character and The Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant Location ( MWWTP) is an activated sludge plant and is located at Pig's Eye Lake alongside of the Mississippi River immediately downstream of St. Paul. It discharges to the Mississippi River. Function The MWWTP provides primary and.second'ary treatment of sewage flow about 1.5 million persons in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and other communities within the current sewer service area no.1, no.2, and.no.6. Capacity The.MWWTP design capacity is now-2.18 mgd, however, expansion of plant facilities now underway will increase its design capacity to.290 mgd. Conditions on There are currently no.limitations on a Use community's flow to the MWWTP that are due to conditions at the plant. -20- General Planning Consideration: On -Site Disposal It is very important for Edina to specify in sufficient detail in its comprehensive plan how its regulatory system for inspection, monitoring,. and maintenance of on -site sewage disposal systems will be implemented and enforced so that the Metropolitan Council can be assured that premature sewer service will not be required. Proper installation, regular maintenance, and effective monitoring of on -site sewage disposal systems are local government responsibilities but there has been great variation in the effectiveness of local regulation among the 190 local governmental units in.the Metropolitan Area. The Minn- esota Pollution Control Agency is presently in the process of develop- ing standards for_on -site disposal systems. Even with the adoption of these standards, however, local governments will still.have the respon- sibilities of professional inspection of the installation, monitoring groundwater quality, and educating the homeowner on the proper use and maintenance of the system. The Metropolitan Council's position is that all municipalities and counties in the Metropolitan Area should incor- porate the MPCA regulations in.the sewer element of their local com- prehensive plans, utilize the plan and MPCA standards in the issuance of permits, and establish an on -going inspection and information program on the use of on -site disposal systems. Stormwater Collection. and disposal of stormwater runoff is a matter of concern to developed, urbanizing, and rural.communities alike. In the preparation of a comprehensive plan, the City of Edina should address stormwater runoff in a manner consistent with the plans and policies the Nine mile creek and the Minnehaha Creek watershed districts and the Water Resources Chapter of.the Metropolitan Development Guide. .1 1 f' M.11) C -1 Mct.rapoli.t ;m Faci l.iti.es Serving Edina 1976 —22— Z---1 Airport Ir LEGEND ��—. cl ur•I Mvxnr on. ����� rplwJ)ID �x1l ncf rTO.) luf v114rY1 xi s.ODnrYI 0 11.5 -1 I*tATYLxI r1rxT! 1) rgOrOlTD l.(rIY[x1 rl�xl)IDf VIII r.or,onYl 1111 ST.1 x) —22— Z---1 Airport Ir A \ SEWERS ; r 2S/12/75 URBAN AND RURAL SERVICE AREAS Area of Planned Urbanization Freestanding Growth Centers Rural Service Area • - - - -- -- L[TMlL -- 1 Y. FR ANC IS [AST BETEL BURNS I OAR GPOVE ANOKA CO. I B /YIET ANDOVER I MAMLARI MASSAN DAYTON C IELD1 CORCORAN I MAPLE GROVE HENNEPIN CO. ❑LORETTO 1 INDSPE"DENC. k Y(DINA I IL-0. 'L C00N IAPIOS 0SS[o BROOKLYN PARK l BROOKLVNI CENiCR 1 LINWOOD l I 1 COLUMBUS I r I FOC._Si CAR[ !( I NEW SCAN DIN FOREST LANE I 1 I LINO LAKES I �[ENT[RYILI[ [LAIN[ HUGO L[[�INGTON CIRCLE PINES II ' OUN DS SMOR[YI[W Y —A UN NORTH 27 I 221 12 OA IRS WHIT[ SEAR )LF1 L KE NEw (BRIGHTON vADMAIS NEIGMTS2 24 MILLS E� 1s � ROSEVILLE MAY SHINGTON CO. —r - - -- ST ILLWATER GRANT Y�A J; PLAIN ) ---III .a YArLEWOOD LLN[ BA7TOWN GOLDEN 16 (7 IOAKDAL[ [LYO t I 6 vALL[T �T WEST L 9 D - - -�- ATEXrowN RAMSEY CO. L NKELAND � .INN[TRIl Ylxh(IOMhA SS. LOUIS a� SAINT PAUL I 71 LAKE AND h I1EN MINNEAPOLIS 3 HOLLYWOOD I WATERTOWN I MOUXD 1' �,E' - _ DEEFMAV[X OPKINf .n. [ {i. C[OIII [LL M 19 W[sT ' _ [�OOD[u[V 3 ST Stt.ONIFACIUS- "'ypq�S" (DINA r] 1 PAUL AFTON )�; ILL SOUTH M[w AS {{{{VIII �XXX'�fff err' / `` 1 [I[N[IELD AI['ZRI N[�GNTS UN.ISN PAUL NENP [T %j� ! 9 9 C"ANHAIlEN Ilk L CAMDEN I WACONIA �.Yr f I%LAKETONN I [DEN PRAIRIE T ST. PAUL AR Y I I BLOOMINGTON INN[[ GROVE I CARVER CO. C-14, M[I GMTS [ IAGAN COTTAGE GROVE DENMARK L-4 - - - - - - Ii -- _ r ' 20 cNASx. - DAKOTA CO. IDLING AMERICA �[[JA �1j S'. I IMA KOPEI N06w00D<_Fs I 4J I CARVER IAL RSA', LURNtYILL[ COLOGNS DAN LGREN I —I _ SAVAGE YOUNG AMERICA I BENTON I - PRIOR APPLE VALLEY ROSEMOUNT ,NININGER I r LOUISVILLE LAKE V1� I f' MA STINGS I J OA N4NCOCR I SAN FRANCISCO - - -- I y�j -I - I + I Ei �\ 1� I VERMILLION I IRAVENNAI L- NCOC, ILND CREEK (I/ I LINLYI LLI �j I SPRING LAKE -� CREDIT I EMPIRE I ❑ I MApSMAN I RIVER \ VERMILLION SCOTT CO. cT. LAWRENL�F 1 Jj l I I �-- -------- � - - - - -- —J L._JB IL PlA1M! I I I i MEW MARRET t� 11 1 T I T TRIER �K[TI BLARELEY I BELLE PLAINE I HELENA I I I MAYP ON I 1 Ck DAR LAME I EUREKA CASTLE ROCK NW I I E IIA RNET I I I HAMPTON rl[ ll I DOUGLAS fi C( M[4 it AG EI IKO I I I I I -- - —___1 �C 1� 1------ -� - - -- RANOoLPN RAN OLIN i I MILES 5 IO 15 20 25 I GREENVALE �wAtERFORO � I sc1oTA [ I SPRING PAR[ 9 VICTORIA 17 FALCON MIIGHTI 25 GIN LAKE 2 ORONO 10 NOLRINADALI 16 MINDOTA 26 BIRCHWOOD 3 NINNITONNA LEACH 11 SPRING LAKE PARK 19 LILTDALS 27 WHITE BEAR N K — County Boundary A rONNA AT 12 U. A. GOVT, 20 GREY CLOUD 26 BATFOAT ORONO 5 EXCELSIOR 13 HILLTOP 21 LANDFALL 29 WILLtNNI[ Municipal Boundary 6 GRIP Nw 000 IA COLUMBIA "RIGHTS 22 DELLWOOD 30 OAK PARK HEIGHTS �AMOFN - 7 WOODLAND IS IT. ANTN CRY 23 PINS SPRINGS 31 LAKELAND tNONIB - Township Boundary B .PICINL LAKE 16 LAUDINDAL[ 24 MANTON IN 37 IT. MANY'S POINT —23— D. RECREATION OPEN SPACE The information in this section is based on the Metropolitan Recreation Open Space Development Guide /Policy Plan adopted by ..the Metropolitan Council in December of 1974. This Policy Plan is available as a guide as the City of Edina develops the Parks and Open Space component of its comprehensive plan. Metropolitan Facilities There are no existing or proposed metropolitan park facilities located within the City of Edina. Regional Trails The Regional Recreation Open Space System Plan map indicates that part of the Regional Trail System will be located in the City of Edina. 1%Then the Regional Recreation Open Space System Plan was adopted in December, 1974, the trail plan was adopted-in "concept" only and is subject to change. The Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission appointed a task force to review the trail plan and report back to the Commission. The Commission and the Metro- politan Council are considering a draft copy of the task force'.s report. A copy of this "new plan" will.be made available when it is adopted, and we will outline any portions of that plan that may affect the City of Edina. -24- PART III EXCLUSIONS The Metropolitan Land Planning Act provides that this System Statement specify any parts of a land use plan, public facilities plan, or implementation program which may be excluded from the comprehensive plans of the local government units. The Metropolitan Council finds that all provisions of Section 9 of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act shall be included in the comprehensive plan of the City of Edina. The Council will be promulgating guidelines to assist communities to fulfill the comprehensive planning provisions of the Metro - politan Land Planning Act. Guidelines pertaining to the content of comprehensive plans will be sent to you to help you evaluate your local planning and determine what additional planning is re- quired. -25- po 1.5 H °_)SNEPIN COUNTY 1970 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Preliminary Population Allocations to Minor Civil Division 1975 19980 1985 1990 1995 2000 BLOOMINGTON 81,979 79,119 "9.500 81,900 84,000 BRLOOKLYY CENTER 35,173 35,278 34,00 33,500 32 800 BROOKLYN PARR 26,130 34,971 37,500 49,500 56,500 CHAMPLIN 4,704 7,749 8,500 ___ 13.000 18.000 CHANHASSEN (PT.) 40 35 CORCORANV 1,656 2,981 3,200 ],500 3.600 CRYSTAL 30,92s 29 423 28.500 _ 26,000 24,000 DAYTON (PT,) 2,631 3,737 3,900 4.100 4.500 DEEPHAVEN 3,853 3,934 4.000 4, ?00 4,500 EDEN PRAIRIE 6,938 10,012 13,300 24,300 33,300 F�INA 94 046 48 325 SO 000 50.000_ _ 50 000 EXCELSIOR 2,363 2,971 2,900 2.800 2.800 FORT SNELLING 824 429 900 400 400 GOLDEN VALLEY 24 245 24 548 24.000 23.SC0 23.000 GREENFIELD 977 1 212 1,300 1.300 1,300 GREENWOOD $87 - $92 600 600 670 HANOVER (PT.) 96 131 ISO 150 200 HASSAN TNP• 917 1,618 1,700 1,800 1,800 HOPKINS 13,429 16,492 16,000 15.600 15,500 _ INDEPENDENCE 1,993 2,49t 2,700 _ 3,200 3,400 . LONG 2,000 2,000 LORE :fO 340 371 350 400 350 MAPLE GROVE 6,27S 11,853 14,800 31.500 39,000 MAPLE PIAIN 1 169 1 312 1 400 1.500 1,500 MEDICINE LAKE 446 4S0 450 400 400 _ MEDINA 2 396 2 693 2 900 ___ 3,]00 3.500 MENNEAPOLIS 434 400 397.42t 375 000 385 000 390.000 MINNETONKA 3S.776 37,846 38.000 41.400 43,000 MINNETONKA BEACH 586 598 -55.q 550 550 M!NNETRISTA 2,879 3 S80 3,800 4,100 4.590 MOUND 7,572 8,967 9,500 9,700 9.500 NEW HOPE 23,180 24,236 23,500 21,S00 20,500 ORONO 6,787 7,235 7.400 10,_000 11,900 OSSEO 2.908 3.068 3 000 2,900 2,900 PLYMSOUTH t8 077 ZS 593 29 000 33,000 _ 52;500 RICHFIELD 47,231 43,952 42.500 _ 38,300 -7,000 ROBBINSDALY 18,945 15,610 14 800 13,700 12.900 ROCkTORD (PT.) 166 245 300 300_ 300 ROGERS S44 653 650 700 700 SAINT ANTHONY CPT.) 6,884 6-709 6,500 6,000 6.000 SAINT BOVI ACIDS 685 806 900 900 900 SAINT LOUIS PARR 49,883 47,429 46,000_ _ 42.300 41.300 SHOREWOOD 4 '23 4,471 4.800 - 6,000 _ 7.200 SPRING PARK 1.08 1,03 -1,60a 1,706 1.700 TONKA &1Y 1 397 l 455 1,400 1.300 1.200 WAYZATA 3 700 3,964 4,000 5 000 S.500 WOODLAND 544 S43 Soo 500 _ S00 HENNEPIN COUNTY 1,057 , 5 �O TOTALS 9'0 ^R] 960,312 957 750 1,919.'_ ^0 - - METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Preliminary Household Allocations to Minor Civil Division HENZWP1N COUNTY 1970 1976 1989 1985 1�990 995 2000 BLOOMINGTON 21,816 _ 24.702 26,500 30.300 31.1^0 BROONKLYN CENTER 10.586 11.000 12.400 12.800 BROOKLYN PARK 7.341 11,426 13.500 19,700 23.800 CHAMPLIN 1.291 2,381 2.700 4,000 6.100 CORCORAN 393 865 950 - 1.050 1,150 CRYSTAL 8.291 8.759 8.900 9.000 9,000 CAYTON 686 1.048 1.100 L.200 1 400 DEE ??iAVEN 1.062 1.150 1.200 1.500 1,700 EDEN P.RARIE 1.653 2,958 5.000 9.000 12,600 EDINA 13,002 16.667 18.000 20.000 20,400 EKCELSIOR 895 1.135 1.150 1,200- 1 200 FORT SHELLING LOS �l 80 BO 8 GOLDEN 7.600 8.400 B 600 GREENML0 271 328 330 370 aan GREENWOOD 194 208 220 250 2SO I"OVER @T.) 29 46 S0 60 70 1L4SSAN TWP. 227 383 410 470 510 HOPKINS 4.666 6.620 6.900 7.100 7,100 0MEPENDENCE 519 690 750 900 1 040 LONG LIKE. 454 S02 SSG 530 710 LORETTO 92 91 100 110 110 MAPLE GROVE 1.303 3.377 5.500 9 500 - 12,900 MAPLE PLAIN 337 394 420 1 460 490 MEDICINE iJ1IQ: 287 172 190 190 190 IVMDINA 588 684 130 850 950 MINNEAPOLIS 161.080 162.786 164.600 171,100 175,250 MINNETONKA 9.085 10.776 11.800 i4 ,E00 16.100 MINNETONKA BEACH 158 192 190 200 200 MIINNEIFISSA. 731 955 1.050 1,250 1 450 MOUND 2.323 2.845 3,000 3.10C 3,410 NEW HOPE _ 6.014 7,175 7.500 7,900 8 000 ORONO 1.916 2.199 2,400 3.300 3,800 OSSEO 808 905 950 1,000 1,000 PLYMOUTH 4.577 7.892 10.000 15.500 19,400 RICHFIELD_ _ 14.797 19.947 15.200 IS 3 0 15,300 POBBINSDALE 5.290 5.414 1.600 s 70n S 700 ROCKFORD (PT.) 41 at 90 100 I30 ROGERS 13: 185 210 250 290 :AINT ANTHONY (PT.) 1.878 1.936 2.000 2.0011 2,4110 SAINT BONIFACLUS 210 234 2SO 290 310 SAINT LOUIS PARK 15.778 17.172 17.700 18,400 18-400 SHOREW0015 1.112 1.258 1.400 2,000 2 500 SPRING PARK 449 706 750 800 800 TONKA BAY 433 461 470 480 480 WAY7ATA 1.264 1.482 1.600 2 100 2 300 WOODLAND IS9 166 180 190 190 HENNEPIN COUNTY TOTALS 309.600 342.296 360.790 4 ^4.700 431 820 w /\ e ) s %^"' Prellmary Employment Allocations to Minor Civil Divisions + '_?E!i�iEPi�f CGCNTY } 970 1973 99 1__95 1. 0 1990 !99S 2000 (EST.) BLOOMINGTON 43,955 52,a00 61,000 68.000 75.000 BROOKLYN C-"NTER 9,064 9,900 13,000 15.JC0 16.000 BROOKLYN PARK 2,810 4,100 8,000 13,000 18,000 CHAMPLI.`I 345 300 700 1,900 2,000 CORCORAIi 35 50 100 !00 200 CRYSTAL S 623 5 500 7 000 7,500 8,000 DAYTON (PT.) 50 190 100 200 300 DEE2 Y4VEN 275 400 500 500 600 EDEN PRAIRIE 3,306 5,100 11.000 14,000 16,010 EDT NA 22 060 B-900 36,00a 41.000 43,000 EKCELSIOR 1,200 1,400 1,700 2,000 2.000 FORr SNELLING 14,888 18 000 22,000 27.000 27.000 GOLDEN VALLEY 18,983 22,400 27.000 30.000 32.000 GREENFIELD S 10 I0 SO QO GR= ENWOOD 3S so 50 so so HANO'JER (PT.) 4 10 10 50 50 HASH TWP, 4 10 50 50 so FOPKINS 16,091 16 700 19,000 20.000 21.500 INDEPENDENCE 30 50 so 100 100 LONG LAKE 1 213 1 300 1,400 _ 1,500 1,790 LORETTO 75 100 100 100 100 ALE GROVE 7s9 1,600 4.000 __ 7,000 1c.000 MAPLE PLAIN S0o 500 600 700 800 MEDICINE LAKE 36 50 50 __1_00 100 MCI 384 600 750 1,000 1,250 MINNEAPOLIS 290,324 28S.000 280,000 290,000 285,000 MINNETONKA 5 736 9 000 13,000 _ 20.000 23.000 MINNETONKA BEACH 145 200 200 200 250 MINNETRISTA 10 100 100 100 200 MOUND 2,725 2,600 3 500 4.000 4.500 NEW HOPE 4,41S 5,200 7,000 8.000 9,000 ORONO sso 600 Soo 1.03 2,500 OSSEO 1,738 2,000 2,200 2,500 3.0-10 PLYMOUTH 6,587 10,800 15,000 21,000 26.000 RICHFIELD 10 328 9 400 10,500 __ 11.000 12.000 ROBBINSDALE 4 916 4.400 4.700 - 5,000 6.000 ROCKFORD (PT.) 143 200 . 250 300 400 ROGERS 17S 200 200 300 400 SAINT ANTHONY CPT.) 1,999 2 000 2,900 3,S00 4,000 SAINT BONIFACIUS 120 200 200 200 200 SAINT LOUIS PARR,_ 30.788 30,600 31,500 32,000 - 33.000__ SHOREWOOD 509 600 1,000 1,500 2,000 SPRING PARK 1,500 1,600 2,000 2,300 2.3C0 TOVKA BAY 30 30 so 50 SC WAYZATA 2 'S0 2 500 3 600 _400A S,OCO WOODLAND 4 10 10 10 10 May 17, 1977 To: Ken Rosland From: Warren C. Hyde Subject: .Supplee Request for Park Easement WCH /md MEMO TO: Mr. Warren C. Hyde, City Manager FROM: Mr. Ken Rosland, Director - Park and Recreation DATE: May 13, 1977 SUBJECT: PARK EASEMENT Attached to this memorandum, is a copy of a letter from Mr. Thomas H. Supplee, along with a Certificate of Survey of Mr. Supplee's new residence located at 4416 Vandervork Avenue. Mr. Supplee is requesting an eight (8) foot easement on Park property, as shown on the Certificate of Survey. The park surrounding Mr. Supplee to the side of his lot and the rear of his lot is wild unkempt park land which will`:suffer no environmental damage as a result of granting this easement. At the May 10th Park Board meeting, the Park Board voted to approve the granting of the easement for a $500.00 fee. I have talked to Mr. Supplee and passed along to him the Park Board's recommendation. Mr. Supplee plans to attend the Edina City Council meeting on May 16th and plans'to present his case at that time. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Dunn have been informed of the situation and I believe they can answer any questions in my behalf, since I will be out of town. K. R. plb 4905 East Sunnyslope Road Edina, Minnesota 55424 May 7, 1977 Mr. Ken Rosland Director, Parks & Recreation Edina Park and Recreation Department 4801 W. Fiftieth Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Mr. Rosland: At the suggestion of Nir. Gordon Hughes, this request is submitted to your attention in the hope that it may be favorably considered by the Park Board of Edina at your meeting, May 10, 1977. Specifically, my wife and I seek permission to extend a residential driveway at 4416 Vandervork Avenue to a maximum point of eight (8) feet beyond our lot line to the north. The enclosed survey diagram outlines our problem and seemingly the most practical solution based on consultation with Mr. Hughes and Mr. Don Loftus. We have been residents of Edina for 15 years and purchased this almost completed construction on Vandervork Ave. . having sold our home on E. Sunnyslope Rd.. Unfortunately, this preceded the discovery that the lot plan for the driveway would not realistically accomodate use of the two car garage already built. Mr. Loftus estimated a need up to ten (10) feet of access to provide a "turn- around" solution. Careful measuring with the contractor has developed this request for a maximum of eight (8) feet at the furthest point. Having lived adjacent to Minnehaha Creek for the past 12 years, my wife and I share both a caring and respect for the natural state of the park land next to our new homestead. We do hope the board will grant permission to act on this request and, in turn, we genuinely commit as neighbors to do our part toward the preservation of this valued resource of Edina residents. Sincerely, Thomas H. Supplee CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Z" ;e Coatuze. Ptee . 8/13 DUPONT AVENUE SOUTH .RSAM 18820" Aq 56420 LAND SURVEYORS `+ • '�:. _ -- - Survey for MICliA;'L M CALTf COMPA-W1Y 1 o �• t NUb 79`� • �L -J 1.1 '�' .71iJ � �, � `• ti Via. .t C�.- ��,y.irr.o.,r.ra.s+m��s...��r nr ' � •O` '_ � �. � � - a.�� •- . � /�s� /aT��i %: - .iii 1896 � m 'Deocription: L� *, 1, Flock 15, Cleveland's. Sttbd1Vjs ion of. Blocks Vim, Q, 3, !� , 13, l.h and 1.. -L:nma Abbott Park e hereby.certifyL that this is a true and.correct representation of a survey of the baundaxica of the land above de3cribed Land c£. t�� location of all V buildin-3, If any., thereon and all visible encroschinerts, if any', from or on said.. ,zrd. Dated this 27th day of October,. 197►. P.ropose:i ` Oradea: bye.' -.<:. Finne� �a n gistration e 0.01;3 , Top of ` Blocke Garage-Floor nasemerit >Floor �� 7 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY � 4R►f4M OIC . •11:w� LAND SURVEYORS Survey for: MICHAEL McCAM COMPANY z dgA7 z4"y R. eeaeuw, Pw4. 91130UPUNT AVENUf ](J'JTN 888 1084 55410 J70 v 1 r� cif T4 \ V) V tip - { d ` �tZo V ti a ,, j� .3�. ` y Description: Lot 1, Block 15, Cleveland 9s Subdivialcn of Blacks � # 2, 3, 11, 13, lb and, 15, Emma Abbott Park . 7 r f f We hc:rebJ certify that this �s a true and correct repTesentation of a survey of the b,%undaries of the land above described and o u-t 3 location of all btaildi;li;:�, If an , thereon and all visible encroach^aenLS, if' any, from or Oil said land. Dated this 27th day of Cc�.pber, 1976. Proposed .Grades: by ainncs ta��-egistra ion Top of Blocks Garage-=' }t loon 3 ......Basement ,Floor_- ^___._ -- . RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSFER OF DWIGHT WILLIAMS PARK FROM SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 273 TO THE CITY OF EDINA WHEREAS, the City.of Edina has used and maintained a certain parcel of -land south.of Browndale Avenue and north. of-West 50th;Street. for public park.purposes for a number of years; and WHEREAS, said park parcel has commonly been referred to as Dwight Williams Park and WHEREAS, the Edina. Heritage Preservation Board has identified the park property as a historic.site of local significance, and the site has been nominated to the National Register of Historic Places because it is the original location of the Edina Mills grist mill; and WHEREAS, the Edina Heritage Preservation Board proposed to conduct an archaeological excavation of the site to locate the.foundation and recover historic artifacts; and . WHEREAS, the Edina Heritage Preservation Board desires to have City ownership of . the park prior to .undertaking the archaeological exploration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the `City Council f the City request transfer of title of the parkland east of Minnehaha Creek and west of the Wooddale School-fence, presently recorded as owned by the Edina Public Schools,.to the -City, to enable the archaeological exploration to begin. Resolution Providing for Transfer of Edina Mills Gristmill Site from School District 273 to City of Edina 1. The Edina Heritage Preservation.Board,, having requested permission to hire an archaeologist to begin excavation of the Edina Mills gristmill site, the first phase of this project to be- funded under the 1976 Community Development grant program and 2. Further that the Park Board, having approved this proposal May 10, 1977 contingent upon express approval of all adjacent property owners, and having received such approval BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF EDINA that the city request transfer of title of the park land.east of the creek, presently listed to the Edina Public Schools, to the City so that the archaeological project can be carried out. MEMORANDUM 70: - Warren C. Hyde, City Manager, the Mayor and.City Council FRO14 - Harold Sand, Assistant Planner •SUBJECT: Edina Mills Archaeological Excavation The Edina- Heritage Preservation Board is requesting.permission to hire an 'archaeologist to begin excavation of the Edina Mills gristmill site. The first phase of this project was allocated $4,845 under the 1976 Community Development grant program. The Heritage Preservation Board is proposing to hire Mr. Richard Bush, Morningside resident and Edina East upper division teacher with appropriate archaeological experience. The proposed fee arrangement is $10 per hour with a total not to exceed $3,000 for professional services and equipment rental. The remainder of the 1976 grant funds will be utilized for surveying, relandscaping and grade level delineation of the foundation location. Mr. Bush will supervise excavation performed by a labor crew provided by the center for community action. In addition he will provide photographic and graphic documentation, enumeration of artifacts and a project report. The Park Board approved this proposal May:10, 1,977, contingent upon contact - of the adjacent property owners aiid Mr. Elmer Williams, father of Dwight Williams. The two adjacent homeowners and Mr. Williams have been contacted and expressed approval of the project. It has been determined that the actual title to the park land east of the creek is still listed to the Edina Public Schools despite city use and maintenance for many years. Prior to procceding with the project the HPB feels the transfer of the property should be accomplished. The school administration has indicated they can foresee no objection to transfer of all the land west of the chain link fence that encloses the playground. HS:ln 5/13/77 June 2, 1977 Dr. Ralph H. Lieber, Superintendent Edina Public Schools 5601 West 70th Street Edina, Minnesota 55435 Dear Dr. Lieber: The Edina Heritage Preservation Board has undertaken the historic research of the Edina Mills Gristmill site located in Dwight Williams Park west-of the Wooddale School playground. During their investigation, it was determined that the parkland is still recorded under the public school district owner- ship. Pursuant to the enclosed resolution, the Edina City Council has re- quested transfer of the title to the property to the City. This will enable the continued research of the site including an archaeological exploration pro- posed this summer. We have drafted the necessary document to facilitate the transfer in accord- ance with your request. Provided the enclosed documents are acceptable, we would appreciate consideration of this request by the School Board at.the June meeting. Sincerely, Warren C. Hyde City Manager N4 FM Enclosures AS \ �%' ' Oct ,fit + �� 0,¢G� / le /� T �. ` L ~� GAP -00 % ir• �•''� I ,.V U f•• .Q y4 �R y9� V kc tsl\ ��� •rq'� ; o ' �' ��!/'r -, � "- +; � 15,770 QGri ' L'• ,� �`���� C'•S- t.. 1C �� % 1 i;y I �`. .t r: /•; -S.S •C:•F• Q v = '� Jt �il`1 �,.io�`ti� - •5537. iG� w� _� r'i zt cc Boo sq. vrr. � . ��� �:� •�/ (�. T 1. Y .r \ s�,•{,y ;.: � � �A �•' ' `, •�� �"'�"�'. O, /I:ERAND DEVELOPER. John J. McCauley SURVEYOR AND DESIGNER: EGAN, FIELDS ":Oti:AK, INC. 6416 McCauley Circle Surveyors Edina, Minnesota 7415 Ylayzata Boulevard 941-4411 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55x26 546.6831 DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block 1, McCAULEY HEIGHTS 4TH AODITIOK 1 hereby certify that this plan was surveyed by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duty Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State ' of Minnesota. • Dated this IIth day of February, 1971. [CAN. FIELD b NOWAK. INC. Surveyors by Minnesota Registration ho. 6122 Area for proposed McCAULEY HEIGHTS 7TH ADDITION: Lot 1, Block 1, ='27,625 square feet or 0.634 acres (cjbo0i' 'alts ''''� ^•".. =�i>r� z Lot'2, Block 1,= 28,614 square feet or 0.657 acres (9soo �a ►1-, �''�" ! % RDA O Nt;, Ib cu � y >. IL IV �� ��_ �� •� `-r�..\'�`• (r .r„ .,, a ^'D / •� J iii i G • ov ` •v J. W �tD li.: c4 �T L,4 RU���Ea� '1U •• 44 A-V s CITY OF EDINA In the Matter of the Application of JOHN J. McCAULEY for a Subdivision of Land entitled McCauley Heights 7th Addition (S -77 -3) FINDINGS, DECISION., AND REASONS The above entitled matter was heard before the City Council, City. of Edina, on April 18, 1977, May 2, 1977, and , 1977. Mr. and Mrs. John J. McCauley [ "Pro- ponents"] were present. The City Council, having heard and reviewed all of the facts and arguments presented by the Pro- ponents and City staff, and having heard and reviewed the evidence and law adduced by the Proponents and the City staff, and being fully advised, after due consideration, hereby makes the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The Proponents, on February 11, 1977, submitted an application for a subdivision entitled McCauley Heights 7th Addition. The subdivision is of land presently described as Lot 2, Block 1, McCauley Heights 4th Addition. The proposed subdivision is generally located east of McCauley Trail, north of McCauley Lane, south of McCauley Circle, and is bounded on the east by Arrowhead Lake. 2. The subject property is presently zoned R -1 Single Family Dwelling District and is served with public sanitary sewer. The proposed land use for the proposed subdivision is -- - - --R -1 -- Single -- Family - Dwe- ll- ing-- Dis-trict-- 3. The proposed subdivision (Exhibit A) delineates two single family dwelling lots in a northwesterly to south- easterly alignment. Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision is 27,625 square feet in area, of which approximately 9,800 square feet lie bellow the normal water elevation of Arrowhead Lake. Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision is "28,614 square feet in area, of which approximately 9,500 square feet lie below the normal water elevation of Arrowhead Lake. A. Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision has access from McCauley Circle. An existing single family dwelling is located on Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision. This dwelling maintains a 35- foot setback from McCauley Circle, a 15 -foot setback from the northwesterly line of the proposed subdivision, a 13. 5- foot. setback from the southwesterly line of Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision, and a setback of 190 feet from Arrowhead Lake: 5. Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision has access from .McCauley Lane. Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision is presently vacant. -2- G., Edina Ordinance No. 801 (the "Platting Ordinance ") requires that every plat, replat, and subdivision comply with all applicable provisions of state law and "the Zoning Ordinance (No. 811) of the Village." Ordinance No. 811 defines "depth- of______ lot as "the mean horizontal distance between the mean front street and the mean rear lot line." Ordinance No. 811 further defines "width of lot" as "its own mean.width.measured at right angles to its mean depth." 7. Ordinance No. 811 requires that the minimum lot depth for a single family dwelling lot served with public sanitary sewer shall be 120 feet. Ordinance 811 further requires that the minimum lot width for a single family dwelling lot served with public sanitary sewer shall be 75 feet. 8. Ordinance No. 811 further requires setbacks for a single family dwelling as follows: Front street setback - 30 feet Interior side yard setback - 10 feet Rear yard setback - 25 feet. 9. Ordinance No. 811 does not define "front street line." However, in this case, both lots.each have access by only one street. Therefore, to meet the terms of the defin'Ltion, the lot depth must be measured from the only street line that exists on the lot. Also, the house now on the proposed Lot l: is oriented to McCauley Circle as its front street line since it maintains a 35 -foot setback from that line. To determine a different front street line for the proposed Lot 2'would be to. -3- ,4 apply different criteria and standards for similarly situated properties. Also, future development to the northwest of the proposed Lot 2 will probably result in houses fronting on McCauley Lane with setbacks of 30 feet. Therefore, to determine a front line for the proposed Lot 2 other than McCauley Lane would result in different setbacks for dwellings along that street.. Therefore, the northeast lot line (abutting McCauley Circle) of Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision serves as the front street line of Lot 1, Block 1, and the southwest lot line (abut- ting McCauley Lane) of Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision serves as the front street line of Lot 2, Block 1. 10. As measured from its front street line (McCauley Circle), Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision has a lot. depth of 120.7 feet. However, the existing house on the proposed Lot 1 will have a rear yard setback of only 13.5 feet from the proposed Lot 2 instead of the required 25 feet. 11. As measured from its front street line (McCauley Lane), Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision has a lot depth of 85 feet, or 35 feet less than the required lot depth. 12. The dimensions of the proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 at the point where each lot intersects Arrowhead Lake are each less than 40 feet. 13. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has adopted "Statewide Standards and Criteria for the Management of Municipal Shoreland Areas of Minnesota." The City of Edina has not as yet adopted these standards in ordinance form. The City of Edina will be required, however, to adopt a shoreland ordinance -4- at a future date -that must comply with thesel.s.tandards. These standards state that "lots served by public sewer and which abut a public water.shall be at least 20,000 square feet in area and at least 75 feet in width at the building, line and at the..ordi- nary high water mark. 14. The Edina Planning Commission reviewed the proposed subdivision at its March 2, 1977, meeting.. The Planning Commis- sion recommended denial of the proposed subdivision in that: 1. The lakeshore frontage is minimal and would cause overuse and possible pollution of the lake. 2. Faulty, piecemeal planning and arrangement have caused inadequate frontage on roads. 3. If approved, the subdivision would result in elongated lots not capable of supporting development consistent with other development on Arrowhead Lake. Approval of this request would therefore disturb the present symmetry of development around the lake. The Planning Commission also noted that if McCauley Lane is established as the street and front yard, then the pro- posed new lot would not meet the minimum 120 -foot lot depth requirement and would not be deep enough to allow construction of a home that would maintain the required front and rear _yard setbacks. 15. The Proponents have submitted two plans (Exhibits B and C) to the City Planning Department showing possible orien- tations of a single family dwelling on Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision. Both plans indicate a dwelling setback from the front street line (McCauley Lane) of Lot 2,. Block 1, -5- AI I . ._. of the proposed subdivision of less than 15 feet, and a rear yard setback of less than 25 feet. The second plan (Exhibit C) does indicate a structure located such that a 30 -foot setback _ is maintained_ fr_o-m,McC_au ley- _Lane -;__ however, - -such. a_- setback is - - -- not maintained along the total length of the front street line Therefore, based on the foregoing Findings, the City Council does hereby make the following nVOTCTnM- The Application for a proposed subdivision entitled McCauley Heights 7th Addition is hereby denied. The above decision is made for the following REASONS: A. The depth of Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed sub- division is.35 feet less than the minimum allowable single family lot depth as specified in Edina Ordinance No. 811. B. If the plat were approved, the house now on Lot 1 of the proposed plat would be made nonconforming in that it would not have the required rear yard setback of 25 feet. C. Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision is not of sufficient-depth to allow construction of a'dwelling I that would maintain the required front street setback and rear yard setback as specified in Edina Ordinance No. 811. D. Lots 1 and-2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision do not meet minimum lot width requirements for lots_.abutting public waters as specified in the "Statewide Standard and Criteria for the Management of Municipal Shoreland Areas of Minnesota" as adopted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. -6- ML�M/lD TT7 T1T7M TO: Warren C. Hyde, City Manager FROM: Gordon Hughes, Planning Director RE: McCauley Heights 7th Addition The Planning Commission reviewed McCauley Heights 7th Addition on their March 2, 1977, meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed subdivision due to a minimum lake shore frontage, inadequate frontage of lots, and elongated lots not capable of supporting development con- sistent with other development on Arrowhead Lake. The Planning Commission also noted that if McCauley Lane were established as the front.street, then Lot 2 would not meet the minimum 120 foot lot depth require- ment.. Since the City Council meeting on Apri1.18, staff has received a drawing showing the locations of the proposed structures on Lots l and 2, McCauley Heights 7th Addition: iae have also received several inquiries regarding the de'fini- tion of front street and side - street setbacks and the associated requirements. Edina Ordinance No. 811 defines "depth of lot" as the minimum horizontal distance between the main front street and the main rear lot line. The Ordinance further notes that the front street setback is the measured distance from the street right -of -way. In reviewing the drawings submitted by Mr. McCauley which located the proposed structures on McCauley Heights 7th Addition, it is our opinion that the.-. southern boundary .line of Lot 2 should be considered the front lot line of Lot.2 in that it fronts on McCauley Lane. As shown on the drawing,. Mr. McCauley proposes to orient the structure such that the side of the structure would face McCauley Lane and the front of the structure faces Outlot A of McCauley. Heights 3rd Addition. In the event of the development of Outlot A, it is apparent that homes with access from McCauley Lane would be-required to meet the front street setback from McCauley Lane. If Mr. McCauley were allowed to construct the home on Lot 2 as proposed it would result in a structure not in.keeping with other homes constructed in the same vicinity in that the proposed front street setback ; ?;ould not be maintained.. Staff, therefore, recommends denial of the proposed subdivision in that variances would be required to orient the house as proposed for Lot 2, McCauley Heights 7th Addition. GH:nr 4 -29 -77 cc: Mayor and City Council 1 ` �d A 0 A16/ /� y Wp TNII _ ��L�O 71$64• \ j --; : gay._ ' • y ,. � ; � 4.,; 5 I ..... 1 ? 1390 1 �. yam/ '••.. �, ='._n' _� L,., � ' i Tjf ,\ �.' cya th • � "fib .. • O lL O i 19HOU H � LA 78.59 _ N.5 °39 W }IZ - �.. i city of c3cIffimm 48,01 WEST FIFTIETH STREET • EDINA. MINNESOTA 63424 927 -8861 May 11, 1977 Mr. and Mrs. John J. McCauley 6416 McCauley Circle Edina, MN 55435 Dear Mr. and Mrs. McCauley: Re: Proposed McCauley Heights 7th Addition At the May 2, 1977, City Council meeting, staff was directed to prepare "Findings of Fact" for the above - referenced proposed subdivision. Enclosed is a copy of these Findings for your review. As you know, this matter will again be considered by the Council on May 16, 1977. Please address any comments regarding the Findings of Fact to the Council at the time of the hearing. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Gordon L. Hughes Planning Director GLH:nr Enc. CITY OF EDINA In the Matter of the Application of JOHN J. McCAULEY for a Subdivision of Land entitled McCauley Heights 7th Addition (S -77 -3) FINDINGS, DECISION, AND REASONS The above entitled matter was heard before the City Council, City of Edina, on April 18, 1977, May 2, 1977, and , 1977. Mr. and Mrs. John J. McCauley [ "Pro- ponents "] were present. The City Council, having heard and . reviewed all of the facts and arguments presented by the Pro- ponents and City staff, and having heard and reviewed the evidence and law adduced by the Proponents and the City staff, and being fully advised, after due consideration, hereby makes the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The Proponents, on February 11, 1977, submitted an application for a subdivision entitled McCauley Heights 7th Addition. The subdivision is of land presently described as Lot 2, Block 1, McCauley Heights 4th Addition. The proposed subdivision is generally located east of McCauley Trail, north of McCauley Lane, south of McCauley Circle, and is bounded on the east by Arrowhead Lake. 2. The subject property is presently zoned R -1 Single Family Dwelling District and is served with public sanitary sewer. The proposed land use for the proposed subdivision is R -1 Single Family Dwelling District. 3. The proposed subdivision (Exhibit A) delineates two single family dwelling lots in a northwesterly to south- easterly alignment. Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision is 27,625 square feet in area, of which approximately 9,800 square feet lie below the normal water elevation of Arrowhead Lake. Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision is 28,614 square feet in area, of which approximately 9,500 square feet lie below the normal water elevation of Arrowhead Lake. 4. Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision has access from McCauley Circle. An existing single family dwelling is located on Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision. This dwelling maintains a 35 -foot setback from McCauley Circle, a 15 -foot setback from the northwesterly line of the proposed subdivision, a 13.5 -foot setback from the southwesterly line of Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision, and a setback of 190 feet from Arrowhead Lake. 5. Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision has access from McCauley Lane. Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision is presently vacant. -2- 6. Edina Ordinance-No. 801 (the "Platting Ordinance ") requires that every plat, replat, and subdivision comply with all applicable provisions of state law and "the Zoning Ordinance (No. 811) of the Village._"Or -dinance.-- No_.- _811_defines - -- "depth -of- -- -- lot" as "the mean horizontal distance between the mean front street and the mean rear lot line." Ordinance No. 811 further defines "width of lot" as "its own mean width measured at right angles to its mean depth." 7. Ordinance No. 811 requires that the minimum lot depth for a single family dwelling lot served with public sanitary sewer shall be 120 feet. Ordinance 811 further requires that the minimum lot width for a single family dwelling lot served with public sanitary sewer shall be 75 feet. 8. Ordinance No. 811 further requires setbacks for a single family dwelling as follows: Front street setback - 30 feet Interior side yard setback - 10 feet Rear yard setback - 25 feet. 9. Ordinance No. 811 does not define "front street line." However, in this case, both lots each have access by only one street. Therefore, to meet the terms of the definition, the lot depth must be measured from the only street line that exists on the lot. Also, the house now on the proposed Lot 1 is oriented to McCauley Circle as its front street line since it maintains a 35 =foot setback from that line. To determine a different front street line for the proposed Lot 2 would be to -3- apply different criteria and standards for similarly situated properties. Also, future development to the northwest of the proposed Lot 2 will probably result in houses fronting on - - - - - McCauley- Lane -with setbacks - -of --30 feet.- Therefore; - -to determine a front line for the proposed Lot 2 other than McCauley Lane would result in different setbacks for dwellings along, that street. Therefore, the northeast lot line (abutting McCauley Circle) of Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision serves as the front street line of Lot 1, Block 1, and the southwest lot line (abut- ting McCauley Lane) of Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision serves as the front street line of Lot 2, Block 1. 10. As measured from its front street line (McCauley Circle), Lot 1, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision has a lot depth of 120.7 feet. However, the existing house on the proposed Lot 1 will have a rear yard setback of only 13.5 feet from the proposed Lot 2 instead of the required 25 feet. 11. As measured from its front street line (McCauley Lane), Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision has a lot depth of 85 feet, or 35 feet less than the required lot depth. 12. The dimensions of the proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 at the point where each lot intersects Arrowhead Lake are.each less than 40 feet. 13. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has adopted "Statewide Standards and Criteria for.the Management of Municipal Shoreland Areas of Minnesota." The City of Edina has not as yet adopted these standards in ordinance form. The City of Edina will be required, however, to adopt a shoreland ordinance -4- at a future date that must comply with these standards. These standards state that "lots served by public sewer and which abut a public water.shall be at least 20,000 square feet in area and at least 75 feet in width at the building _ line_ _and__at _the__ordi -__ nary high water mark." 14. The Edina Planning Commission reviewed the proposed subdivision at its -March 2, 1977, meeting. The Planning-Commis- sion recommended denial of the proposed subdivision in that: 1. The lakeshore frontage.is minimal and would cause overuse and possible pollution of the lake. 2. Faulty, piecemeal planning and arrangement have caused inadequate frontage on roads. 3. If approved, the subdivision.would result in.elongated lots not capable of supporting development consistent with other development on Arrowhead Lake. Approval of this request would therefore disturb the present symmetry of development around the lake. The Planning Commission also noted that if McCauley Lane is established as the street and front yard, then the pro- posed new lot would not meet the minimum 120 -foot lot depth requirement and would not be deep enough to allow construction of a home that would maintain the required front and rear yard setbacks. 15. The Proponents have submitted two plans (Exhibits B and C) to the City Planning Department showing possible orien- tations of a single family dwelling on Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision. Both plans indicate.a dwelling setback from the front street line (McCauley Lane) of Lot 2, Block 1, -5- of the proposed subdivision of less than 15 feet,• and a rear yard setback of less than 25 feet. The second plan (Exhibit C) does indicate a structure located such that a 30 -foot setback is maintained from McCauley Lane; however, such a setback is not maintained along the total length of the front street line. Therefore, based on the foregoing Findings, the City Council does hereby make the following nP0 T q TnN The Application for a proposed subdivision entitled McCauley Heights 7th Addition is hereby denied. The above decision is made for the following REASONS: A. The depth of Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed sub- division is 35 feet less than the minimum allowable single family lot depth as specified in Edina Ordinance No. 811. B. If the plat were approved, the house now on Lot 1 of the proposed plat would be made nonconforming in that it would not have the required rear yard setback of 25 feet. C. Lot 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision is not of sufficient depth to allow construction of a dwelling that would maintain the required front street setback and rear yard setback as specified in Edina Ordinance No. 811. D. Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, of the proposed subdivision do not meet minimum lot width requirements for lots abutting public waters as specified in the "Statewide Standard and Criteria for the Management of Municipal Shoreland Areas of Minnesota" as adopted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. C May 11, 1977 To: Mayor and Council From: Warren C. Hyde Subject: Public Works Department Supervisory Positions You are aware, I think, that Adam Batko, Public Works Superintendent since 1956, will reach "the magic ( ?) age of 65 a year from now. He'has been having some physical problems with his back lately and feels that he will wish to retire in May, 1978. Don Kottke, who has been Street Foreman under Batko, resigned two weeks ago, at the age of 62, after a total of 23 years service, during the last two and one -half of which he served as Foreman. In considering how best to re- staff, Mr. Dunn and I concur.in feeling that we should now attempt to recruit someone with the knowledge, experience, and ability to succeed Mr.. Batko. There are.three to five persons in.the organization who may be qualified and interested, although we also plan to recruit from the outside. We,should. set up the job as Assistant Superintendent of Public Works and I believe -it is 'necessary to I upgrade the salary from that of Foreman. Following are the pertinent rates.: Superintendent of Public Works $22,880 New Position - Assistant Superintendent 20,000 Foreman (Street, Sewer, Water, Parks, Mechanic) 17,420 (maximum) Currently, there are vacancies in the street and sewer positions, and only one of the other three receives the maximum. If you approve the creation of the new position and the salary rate, we would not appoint.a. new Street:Foreman. WCH /md t March 29, 1977 Mr. Robert Hoffman Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, and Lundgren, Ltd. 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55431 Dear Mr. Hoffman: city Of C77 _1 4801 WEST FIFTIETH STREET - EDINA. MINNESOTA 86424 Re: Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition 927 -8861 As you know, the Edina City Council at its March 21, 1977, meeting adopted a motion recommending that the City grant preliminary and final plat approval, rezoning approval, and issuance of a flood plain permit for Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition once necessary findings and reasons are prepared and approved by the Council. The Council intends to act at the earliest possible date, without re- referrals to the City Planning Commission, based on your agreement to ded- icate Outlot A and Outlot B to the City of Edina. The Council's intent is to grant both the preliminary and final approvals as well as a flood plain permit at a future Council meeting and to waive second hearings of these matters in order to expedite your development schedule. At the time of final platting and rezoning, the City must have certain docu- ments and agreements from you: 1.• Hardshells and linens of Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition. Outlot A and Outlot B should be designated ''Parkland" on these documents. Lots 1 through 13 should not be included in final platting at this time due to the access problem, and should be identified as " Outlot C," or omitted entirely from the plat. 2. Metes and bounds description of Outlot A and Outlot B. Your sur- veyor will be able to supply this information. 3. Executed deed to the City of Edina for a metes and bounds des- cribed area which is the same as Outlots A and B, and also a deed describing Outlots A and B by reference to the proposed plat. 4. An executed Developer's Agreement which details tho methods and financing of public roads and utilities. I have enclosed a copy of a Developer's Agreement for your review. Please contact Bob Dunn, City Engineer, as early as possible to complete this agree- ment. Again, the City Council intends to grant subdivision and rezoning approval and issue a flood plain permit as expeditiously as possible. The above -noted documents and agreements are standard requirements for such approval. The Council had hoped to be able to adopt findings and reasons and grant the desired approvals and permit at its April 4, 1977, meeting. However, based upon what KJI , LPL , Mr. Robert Hoffman Page 2 March 29, 1977 has presently been delivered to the City, it is doubtful if the above documen- tation will be available in time for that meeting. If not available, the Council will only hear further facts and information relative to the development and give preliminary review to the findings and reasons it requested. n copy of the proposed findings and reasons is enclosed for your review. Please call once it has been reviewed and give us any changes or additions you may have. It is anticipated that the Council, on April 4, will continue the hearing until the next meeting with the expectation that all of the above documentation will then be ready. Also, in the interim, the findings and reasons can be revised based upon the information received at the April 4 meeting. The Council then will presumably adopt the findings and reasons, once it has approved them, and grant the desired approvals and permit all at the same meeting. Sincerely, '/_ �zz I Gordon L. Hughes Environmental Planner GLH:nr Enc. cc: Warren C. Hyde, City Manager Members of the City Council Bob Dunn Greg Luce CITY OF EDINA In the Matter of the Application of WALLACE.B. KENNETH for a Subdivision of Land Entitled Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition (S- 77 -2); a Petition of WALLACE B. KENNETH for Rezoning of Portions of Said Addition (Z- 77 -4); and an Application of WALLACE B. KENNETH for a Special Flood Plain Permit for Filling Portions of Said Addition. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND REASONS- The above entitled matters were heard before the City Council, City of Edina, on March 21, 1977, April 4, 1977, and 1977. Wallace B. Kenneth [ "Proponent "] was present, and also was represented by Robert Hoffman,.of.the firm of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. The City Council, having heard and re- viewed all of the facts and arguments presented by the Proponent, his representative, and by the City staff, and having heard and reviewed the evidence and law adduced by the Proponent,.his representative, and the City staff, and being fully advised, after due consideration, hereby makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The Proponent, on January 19, 1977, submitted an application for subdivision and a petition for rezoning for a 33.02 acre tract of land located in northwest Edina. The appli- cation and petition were the result of many meetings between the Proponent and the City Planning Staff over the development of the subject property. The proposed subdivision delineated 22 R -2 single - family dwelling lots, 18 R -2 two - family dwelling lots, 2 R -4 multiple - family dwelling lots, and 2 outlots. 2. The subject property was rezoned in 1964 to a com- bination of R -1 single- family dwelling district, R -2 two - family dwelling district, and R -4 multiple - family dwelling district. The Proponent petitioned for rezoning of the subject property on January 19, 1977, in order to realign the boundaries of the previously granted rezoning with the boundaries of the land uses delineated in the proposed subdivision of January 19, 1977. 3. The proposed subdivision and rezonings are in conformance with the Western Edina Land Use Plan adopted by the Edina City Council in January 1970. 4. Proponent acquired the subject property in 1961. Outlots A and B of the subject property, when acquired by Proponent, were in the same physical condition as they are now. 5. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District [the "District "] adopted its first Overall Plan in March 1961, which established flood plain elevations for the entire reach of Nine Mile Creek. At that time, the District adopted a policy of restricting encroachment onto the flood plain to 20 percent of the distance between the flood plain elevation contour and the creek channel. In 1973, the Overall Plan was revised, and the 20..percent.en- croachment policy readopted to restrict net encroachment to 20 percent or less of the flood plain area of the parcel being considered for development. This revision was only to set out the actual practice of the District under the 1961 Overall Plan. The District includes lands from Lake Minnetonka to the Minnesota River, including Minnetonka, Hopkins, Edina, Eden Prairie, and Bloomington. 6. The City has been advised by the District that the District has never granted a variance from the 20 percent encroach- ment regulation. The District continues to enforce the 20 percent encroachment regulation. The District has not advised the City of Edina of any forthcoming revisions of the 20 percent encroach- ment regulation. 7. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 104, the City of Edina adopted a Flood Plain Management Ordinance (No. 815) in 1973. This ordinance requires that a special permit be obtained prior to a change of land use or the placement of any obstruction in the flood plain. This ordinance.also states that no special permit shall be issued.unless the proposed use or obstruction has received approval of the applicable watershed district. $_. According to the official Flood Zone Profile of the City of Edina, established by Ordinance No. 815, as well as that of*the District, established by its Overall Plan, the flood plain elevation of Nine Mile Creek at the subject property is 876, based upon Mean Sea Level [ "M.S.L. "]; the flood plain ele- vations were established after detailed hydraulic studies of Nine Mile Creek and are based upon the regional flood, as authorized by said Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 104; a regional flood is one that can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100 -year recurrence interval. 9. Based on a flood plain elevation of M.S.L. 876, approximately one -half of Lot 42, a small portion of Lincoln Drive, and nearly all of Lots 35 -41, Outlot A, and Outlot B, as shown on Proponent's preliminary subdivision, are located below the elevation shown for the subject property in the City's -3- official Flood Zone Profile, i.e., M.S.L. 876, and are within the flood plain of Nine Mile Creek as established by the City of Edina and by the District. 10. The portions of the subject property below M.S.L. elevation 876 are subject to flooding. 11. The portions of the subject property below M.S.L. elevation 876 are subject to the provisions of Ordinance No. 815 and to the regulations of the District. 12. City staff have determined that the filling required to develop Lots 35 -42 and Lincoln Drive, as shown on the Proponent's preliminary subdivision, would result in a net flood plain en croachment of approximately 20 percent; the District agreed with that determination at its March 16, 1977 meeting. 13. The City of Edina is presently eligible for the National Flood Insurance Program. A community eligible for such insurance that fails to adequately enforce its flood plain management regulations shall be subject to suspension of its flood insurance program eligibility. Such a suspension will have an adverse effect on the ability of residents to finance the purchase, sale, and remodeling of homes. 14. Since 1961, numerous private property owners, as well as the City of Edina, have constructed improvements, public utilities, and parklands in reliance on the accuracy and constancy of the flood plain elevations of Nine Mile Creek. Private resi- dences and businesses have been constructed at locations above flood plain elevations to preclude normal flood damage on the assurance that such flood plain elevations would not increase WIM and thus cause heretofore unknown and unexpected flood damages. In addition, the City of Edina has planned and constructed park- lands and storm drainage systems in reliance on the flood plain elevations. 15. The City of Edina Ordinance No. 815 provides that "development within [the] flood plains must be regulated on the basis of and with full consideration of the impact on the total creek along its full length. . . The District has determined, after detailed study of the watershed area and all subwatersheds therein, that to allow filling of the flood plain in excess of 20 percent along the full length of the creek would result in flooding of properties not presently subject to flooding. Flood plain lands, such as Outlots A and B, in their natural state, are a valuable land resource whose preservation is necessary and desirable to (1) minimize the possibility of periodic flooding resulting in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption. of government services, and extraordinary public expenditures for projects to contain, store, and control runoff, (2) minimize the rapid runoff of surface waters, and (3) improve the quality of surface water discharged into Nine Mile Creek. 16. Barr Engineering Company, the consultant hydraulic engineers for the District, has advised the City that the flood plain elevation on the subject property has not been altered due to the improvements to County Road 18, which borders the west side of the subject property. Improvements to County Road 18 -5- have not altered this flood plain elevation because (a) the cul- vert under the old roadway that drained Nine Mile Creek was not altered at the time of the County Road 18 improvement, and (b) at the time of the improvement, County Road 18 was elevated on pilings in order to allow unaltered flowage of flood waters. Barr Engineering Company has also advised the City that the flood plain elevation for the subject property will not change as a result of any water improvement projects now in the District's Overall Plan or now being contemplated by the District. 17. An hydraulic study of the Mud Lake area of Edina (Bredesen Park),conducted by Barr Engineering Company at the re- quest of the City of Edina and the District, concluded that if the Mud Lake area is developed (as it is proposed) as an interpretive and recreational area, it is essential that no further flood plain encroachment (not even the 20 percent allowed by the District regulations) be permitted on any of the land owned by public agencies. The study further stated that development of the Mud Lake area as proposed will not necessitate any reduction of the 20 percent encroachment allowed on privately owned lands pursuant to the revised Overall Plan. 18. If in public ownership, Outlot A and Outlot B could be used extensively for the temporary storage of storm water runoff from the residential development proposed for the'subject property as well as residential developments located northerly and easterly of the subject property. The use of Outlot A and Outlot B Wile for storm water storage purposes would tend to produce a beneficial filtering and cleansing effect as well as a reduction of peak flows of surface water runoff discharged to Nine Mile.Creek from residen- tial developments. In the event of development of Outlot A and Outlot B, these beneficial filtering and peak flow reduction effects would be substantially eliminated. 19. Outlots A and B of the proposed subdivision adjoin a linear corridor of public open space abutting Nine Mile Creek that extends 3.5 miles southeasterly through the City of Edina, and the addition of Outlots A and B will beneficially expand that open space area. 20. The City of Edina Open Space Committee, in its January 20, 1975 report to the City Council, recommended that the flood plain portion of the subject property (except the 20 percent allowed for development) should be acquired for public open space purposes. 21. Edina Ordinance No. 801. states that "[i]n every plat, replat, or subdivision of land to be developed for residen- tial . . .uses. . .a reasonable portion of such land shall be set aside and dedicated by the tract owner or owners to the general public as open space for parks, playgrounds, public open space, or storm water holding areas or ponds." 22. The Edina Environmental Quality Commission [ "EQC"] reviewed the application for subdivision and petition for rezoning at its February 28, 1977 meeting. The EQC recommended to the -7- City Council that the proposed subdivision and rezonings be ap- proved with the same modifications and requirements as those of the Edina Planning Commission as set out in paragraph 23 hereof (except those at 23(iii) ), and.the added suggestion that the developer be granted development rights up to 350 units, which could be transferred to other multiple development zoned property_ on this site. 23. The Edina Planning Commission reviewed the appli- cation for subdivision and petition for rezoning for the subject property at its March 2, 1977 meeting. The City Planning Com- mission Staff Report then given to the Edina Planning Commission states, in part, that the dedication of Outlots A and B to the City is "a reasonable amount considering the flood plain eleva- tion, the amount of fill to the remaining flood plain, and the necessity to protect flood plain areas to the maximum possible degree." The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the proposed subdivision and rezonings be approved, with the modification that Lots 1 through 13 be excepted from the final plat until access can be provided from the east, and that when the final platting of Lots 1 through 13 is accomplished, a 20 -foot easement must be dedicated between Lots 7 and 8 for utility pur- poses, and that Lots 3 through 9 must have access to the future northeasterly road and cul -de -sac from the Hanson property rather than to Lincoln Drive; and also with the following requirements: -8- (i) That the developer be required to dedicate Outlot A and Outlot B pursuant to the Subdivision Dedication Report. (ii) That a. grading permit from the District and a flood plain permit from the City of Edina be obtained before any work is done in the flood plain. (iii) That the Lincoln Drive /Malibu Drive road plan be reviewed to determine whether that plan is the optimal road plan for the area or whether Lincoln Drive should be a continuous road. 24. The Edina Park Board reviewed the application for subdivision and petition for rezoning at its March 8, 1977 meeting. The Park Board ..recommended; ;.to. 0e'.City. Council that the proposed subdivision and rezonings.be -approved contingent on the dedica- tion to the City of Edina of Outlot A and Outlot B. 25. The District Board of Managers reviewed the proposed subdivision at its March 16, 1977 meeting. The Board of Managers noted that the proposed subdivision was in conformance with the Overall Plan and agreed with the Edina Planning Commission's recommendation that Outlot A and Outlot B of the proposed subdivision be dedicated to the City of Edina. The Board of Managers also indicated that the maximum allowable flood plain encroachment of 20 percent would be based on the total acreage of flood plain on the site; thus, in order to develop Lots 35 -42 and Lincoln Drive, no further flood plain encroachment -9- would be allowed on Outlot A or Outlot B regardless of their public or private ownership status. 26. Lots 1 through 13 on the proposed.plat presently have no public road access; that access to them from the east and north has been delayed pending development of the property to the north and northeast, which,in turn, has been delayed due to liti gation involving the Grandview Park Cemetery. 27. The Lincoln Drive /Malibu Drive road plan as shown on the Proponent's proposed subdivision conforms with previously directed traffic flow policies for Northwestern Edina. 28. At the public hearing conducted by the Edina City Council on March 21, 1977, regarding the proposed subdivision and rezonings, the Proponent's representative stated that the Proponent agrees to and intends to dedicate Outlot A and Outlot B to the City of Edina. Prior to this statement of intent by the Proponent's representative, the Edina City Council indicated an intent to refer the Proponent's application for subdivision and petition for rezoning back to the City staff and to various City advisory commissions and boards for further review and study and to obtain additional facts desired by the City Council. However, in reliance on Proponent's agreement to dedicate Outlot A and Outlot B to the City of Edina, made at the public hearing on March 21, 1977, the Edina City Council agreed to waive further review and study, and to waive further fact research. Therefore, in reliance on Proponent's agreement, the Edina City Council adopted a motion -10- recommending approval of the plat, granting the rezoning, and authorizing issuance of the flood plain permit (with the under- standing that no plat, rezoning, or permit approval was then given or granted),and directing the City staff, in cooperation with the Proponent's representative, to prepare the necessary findings and reasons based on the matters set out in the report from the Planning Commission, the Environmental Quality Commission, and the Planning staff, and on the information brought before the Council at its March 21 meeting, and such other information as may be appropriate, and directing that such findings and reasons be presented to the Council for further review and possible approval on April 4, 1977, and if approved by the Council, and if the Proponent has then fulfilled the ordinance requirements for final plat approval, including the execution of the required subdivision agreement and the dedication of Outlots A and B to the City, that the Council then grant the rezoning and plat approval, and authorize issuance of the flood plain permit. Therefore, based on the foregoing Findings, the City Council does hereby make the following I_§Ix " &-irGUM *C I. That under all of the facts and circumstances, Outlot A and Outlot B are reasonable portions of the subject property to be set aside and dedicated to the general public as public open space and storm water holding areas, and that such dedication be made at the time of approving the plat of the subject property. -11- II. That the City Council grant approval of the proposed subdivision (Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition), with the modifica- tions that Lots 1 through 13 be excepted from the plat, and with the requirement that Outlot A and Outlot B be dedicated to the City of Edina for public open space and storm water holding purposes. III. That the City Council approve the Proponent's petition for rezoning. IV. That the City Council authorize the issuance of a special flood plain permit for the purpose of constructing and developing Lots 35 -42 and Lincoln Drive. V. That the City staff work with the Proponent, the neighbors, and the appropriate City commissions and boards to. alleviate the traffic problems to the north, northeast, and northwest, so that the Proponent will be able to develop Lots 1 through 13 as soon as possible in accordance with the preliminary plat presented to the City. The above Decisions are made for the following REASONS: A. By Ordinance No. 801, a reasonable portion of land to be platted may be required to be.dedicated, at time of plat approval, for open space and storm water holding areas: B. The flood plain elevation of Nine Mile Creek at the subject property is M.S.L. 876. That portion of the subject property lying below elevation 876 is below the elevation shown on -12- the Official Flood Zone Profile established by Ordinance No. 815, and within the flood plain established by the District, and is subject to flooding, and is, therefore, subject to the regu- lations of Ordinance No. 815 and to the regulations of the District. Based on those regulations, and their enforcement, no further fill will be allowed on Outlots A and B, and development of them is severely limited. C. By Ordinance No. 815, flood plain lands such as Outlots A and B must be managed on the basis of, and with full consideration of the impact on, the total creek along its full length. D. Flood plain .lands, such as Outlots A and B, in their natural state, are a valuable land resource whose preservation is necessary and desirable.to (1) minimize the possibility of periodic flooding resulting in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of government services, and extraordinary public expenditures for projects to contain, store, and control runoff, (2) minimize the rapid runoff of surface waters, and (3) improve the quality of surface water discharged into water courses. E. The development of flood plain lands, such as Outlots A and B, in excess of 20 percent along the length of the creek would adversely affect the flood plain elevations on which private property owners and the City of Edina have'relied, and cause unknown and unexpected flood damages. -13- F. Failure of the City.to enforce its flood plain management regulations may result in suspension of its flood insurance program eligibility,with a resulting adverse effect on the ability of residents to finance the purchase, sale, and remodeling of homes. G. The land use resulting from the proposed subdivision and rezonings, with Outlots A and B dedicated to the City for public open space and storm water holding purposes, are proper land uses and consistent with the previously established planning objectives of the City of Edina. H. Outlots A-and B are adjacent to an existing linear corridor of public open space adjoining Nine Mile Creek, and, in their natural state, are a significant natural and scenic area adjoining Nine Mile Creek, and will be a beneficial addition to that open space. I. Retention of Outlots A and B in their natural state will promote and implement the planning and flood plain management objectives of the City of Edina and the District by the creation of significant public open space for storm water holding areas along Nine Mile Creek. Ja The Proponent agreed, at the public hearing before the City Council on March 21, 1977, to dedicate Outlots A and B to the City, and the City Council has relied on that agreement. K. The issuance of the flood plain permit for the purpose of constructing and developing Lots 35 -42 of the proposed plat and Lincoln Drive will result in a flood plain encroachment -14- Cj that is not at variance with the Edina Flood Plain Ordinance or the District's regulations. L. Lots 1 through 13 of the proposed subdivision have no public road access at present, and development of those lots must be delayed pending obtaining of such public road access. M. The Lincoln Drive /Malibu Drive road plan as shown on the Proponent's proposed subdivision conforms with previously directed traffic flow policies for Northwestern Edina. -15- V I MEMORANDUM TO: Warren C. Hyde, City Manager FROM: Gordon Hughes, City Planner Ow SUBJECT: Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition, Preliminary and Final Plat Approval, Rezoning, and Special Floodplain Permit. Attached are the Findings, Decision, and Reasons for the above referenced subdivision. By Monday's meeting, we will also have an executed deed for the outlot to be dedicated to the City, a signed letter from the proponent detailing all agreements and understandings regarding plat approval, and an executed developer's agreement. The Planning Commission reviewed the proponent's modified subdivision and rezoning request at a special meeting. on May 11, 1977. The Planning Commission recommended approval but noted that the Council should consider the advisability of eliminating the cul -de -sacs at the south terminus of Lincoln Drive and the north terminus of Malibu Drive in order to create a through street. The Commission noted, however, that from its perspective either the proponent's plan showing cul -de -sacs or a revised plan showing a through street would be acceptable. GH:ln 5/13/77 ' T EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 11, 1977 Subdivision Wallace B. Kenneth. Generally located east of Lincoln Drive and S -77 -2 west of Malibu Drive extended. R -4 Multiple Family Residential and District and R -1 Single Family Residential District to R -4 and Rezoning R -2 Multiple Residential Districts and R -1 Single Family Residen- Z-77-4 tial District. Refer to: attached graphic. On April 19, 1977, the Planning Commission reviewed a subdivision and re- zoning request entitled Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition. This request had been previously reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on March 2, 1977. However, subsequent to that meeting as well as a Council hearing on March 21, 1977, the proponent submitted a modified subdivision and rezoning request, thus necessitating further Planning Commission review. On April 19, 1977, the Planning Commission continued the subdivision and rezoning request until June 1, 1977, in order to further review the proposed road alignment, the location of the addition- al lots proposed by the modified subdivision request, and the advisability of eliminating the proposed cul -de -sacs on Lincoln Drive and Malibu Drive in order to create a through street. At the proponent's request, the City Council, on May 2, 1977, scheduled•a hearing for May 16, 1977, to consider final plat and rezoning approvals for Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition. The Council reviewed the action of the Planning Commission meeting on April 19, 1977, which requested continuation of the matter until June 1, 1977. However, considering the history,- of the subject property, the Council agreed that the proposed subdivision and rezoning should be resolved as expeditiously as possible. The Council, thus advised that if the Planning Com- mission desired to comment further on the proposed subdivision and rezoning, such comments should be provided prior to the May 16, 1977, Council meeting. Some clarification is in order regarding the proponent's request to modify the subdivision and rezoning request reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 2, 1977, and the City Council on March 21, 1977. Prior to these meetings, the proponent did not know that Outlot A and B would have to be dedicated to the City due to flood plain conditions. Following these meetings, the proponent requested to modify his subdivision by adding eight R -2 lots on the west side of Lincoln Drive and relocating the south line of the southernmost R -4 lot. The reasons for such modifications are two fold. First, the proponent desired to use the maximum 20 percent flood plain encroachment specified by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District-and the City. Second, the proponent desired to obtain full use and benefit of Lincoln Drive by adding lots on the west side of this street. The proponent was agreeable to dedicating a 60 -foot wide area on Lincoln Drive for public access to the outlot•s deeded to the City. All other features of the subdivision including road alignment are unchanged and as pre- viously approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. As to the proposed traffic circulation plan staff advised the proponent at the time of plan preparation of past Council action regarding the Western Edina Circulation Plan. This plan, as adopted by the Council, indicates no connection I { Edina Planning Commission Staff Report, Wallace Kenneth Page 2 May 11, 1977 of Malibu Drive and Linciln Drive (see attached plan sheet). Staff thus advised the proponent to provide cul -de -sacs at the south terminus of Lincoln Drive and the north terminus of Malibu Drive as specified in the Western Edina Circulation Plan. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed modifications to the subdivision, rezoning, and flood plain permit requests in that: 1. Net flood plain encroachment remains at 20 percent. 2. The eight additional R -2 lots will allow the proponent to utilize Lincoln Drive to the fullest possible extent and will relieve the City of financial participation in the construction of Lincoln Drive. 3. The proposed roadway alignment is in conformance with the Western Edina Cir- culation Plan. ` Approval is contingent on: 1. The proponent must remove fill from the two R -4 multiple lots as shown on the attached graphic such that net flood plain encroachment does not exceed 20 percent. 2. Lots 1 through'13 should be identified as an outlot in that access is not available. 3. Acquisition by the City of Edina of the remaining portion of Outlots A and B. GLH:nr 5 -10 -77 . a:.. . .' +' "+ `� ilk ♦y `'1 • ,'f �/j - DEVELOPER, : - �.1 ••\ \\. \'� •\ , 1`�' !, , �. SURVEYORSDESIC'.. �. . 1 `� ` sr • •` ' t ' /;1 3 - Wallace Kenneth Egan, 1 rK01n iiefa ti•.- . ;rat ! / �! • , $1n Ll orive• lets t?rj:aes r - ` -,' \ •� s �8 • , s ; a� "• 5 " `.� -- Luna, Wi ;S:3S IWnneapotis. � Tel• Nk i1e «: '. l., a \„� a _ j'• 6 .; t ! ,C DESCRIPrio* . •` That part of tnt NoRR -nest Quarter of the ►arty •:r'st qua-• •- C -ishipllr••liameM Ming North Of a line err.:n from s7 G ' r' , :.. ►A1 ` �% e e said Norm ': Sl auarter of the Ne �.-. • 1 f . + '? •+••� s 'r• •� .. Nortlnmt corner to rta sin 1.p Eas! l d•S:_ : ' - . �• emir, to a point in t�. East tine M s.. c:. rye, _ ^ • �`; I° '.� e : /. fl �1.\. '' _, •;•� �: r • the Wrthnnt quarter, distant 63L 73 fed South of 1`e r;,., :1� L' j ( {1' ` • :`� '�/. a �: �: iw`: �� ` eecepl the East- MODfeelttrerear. ,•4. _, ,.y I .I''•11i - �..:w3.-.�� - r�� r `That OW the wst ual /at Ipte Scut'eesl QuarterrJ S Ranee 1. lying hf110 fns trereof, and Neae : ` W ti �* ��1 a` .: 10 ' -d Interlachen Milk and the samaedendet East: except t.`-. 1 t is `1A 'n'� ` ♦� • ''�,' °' '; Within the plat of Interlachen InIfL :�;. l: is t -• `\ • ` °� T� (• \ • .1 hereby , certify that this d anwas prepared o m i or Me and That 1 am a duly Registered land Sursryer urr„•r the 4 �1 , • f�`: �.., �': :e' ' Minnesota. ' j {! 1 f \ �!' • ° Ogled this Mh day of Dec..ftr, MA: 3 It I 1 • ♦ a�� , �r, s- ♦�'���i 's —'a Revised lama ry IV 1977; ELAN FLD NOS7aK, 14 { Surveyors e' TT , i !� ', t - . �lG�. p� /�% `. it . w / —�L • fYHnnesota Registration _ CIO �- NOTE: labs 1 13 and Lots � -: _ SOA 66: ice !! ' ( - ' r•i ( Lots 14 -25 and tors 3 dbarewxc-4 ' j- f • �7 . ;' \ I { NOTE lO foot utility, and dr : r__= M_ tt -?' 'r+ t' rr: I all f ortf fd lines J. 400.1 jrt _ � • ..._. ..:� � lid - - _...__ _ _•:;,; '►: /� 1 ; _ ' •�{ �1 IL , ;• _ _517 1 • •, . OIL ,. 'I� rte, � •:.I � •' _� /• ft j �eij = d �••'� �1 I "� 1 LAO - -•. 71'/, '7 '' _ 1 ; r •V + •.. '.•. / 1 � _. _._..__... ._. 1 � :e Iii i �..!� •\I '' `� ALO.%= Y ,0y � m C9 -DE -SAC 0 cr W LL Q S Cn THIS MAP IS PREPARED FORT PLANNING PURPOSES AND SHOULD NOT BE SCALED WHERE ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS ARE ! �O REQUIRED 100Y 1500, Ll.;XF I DO INTERI_ACHEN BLVD 4 irror 1 Loke of Y LQ Z PaRK`' :0`_ TI U.,N N a On�pFRnY DR +® i pNU a a ADD . C ILLA v � � a r- w �CUL-DE-SAC a 3 = cr —�, = noon toasovo a r ' e r" CITY OF EDINA In the Matter of the Application of WALLACE B. KENNETH for a Subdivision of Land Entitled Interlachen Hills FINDINGS, 3rd Addition (S- 77 -2'); a Petition of DECISIONS, WALLACE B. KENNETH for Rezoning of AND Portions of Said Addition (Z- 77 -4); REASONS - and an Application of WALLACE B. KENNETH for a Special Flood Plain Permit for Filling Portions of Said Addition. The above entitled matters were heard before the City Council, City of Edina, on March 21, 1977, April 4, 1977, and , 1977. Wallace B. Kenneth [ "Proponent "] was present, and also was represented by Robert Hoffman, of the firm of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. The City Council, having heard and re- viewed all of the facts and arguments presented by.the Proponent, his representative, and by the City staff, and having heard and reviewed the evidence and law adduced by the Proponent,-his representative, and the City staff, and being fully advised, after due consideration, hereby makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The Proponent, on January 19, 1977, submitted an application for subdivision and a petition for rezoning for a 33.02 acre tract of land located in northwest Edina. The appli- cation and petition were the result of many meetings between the Proponent and the City Planning Staff over the development of the subject property. The first proposed subdivision [hereinafter sometimes called the "January 19 Proposal" to distinguish it from the modified subdivision and rezoning proposal now applied for by the Proponent] delineated 22 R -2 single- family dwelling lots, 18 R -2 two - family dwelling lots, 2 R -4 multiple - family dwelling lots, and 2 outlots, being Outlet A and Outlot B. 2. The Edina Environmental Quality Commission [ "EQC"] reviewed the January 19 Proposal at its February 28, 1977 meeting. The EQC recommended to the City Council that the proposed subdivision and rezonings be approved with the same modifica tions and requirements as those. of the Edina Planning Commission as set out in paragraph 3 hereof (except those at 3(iii) ), and the added suggestion that the developer be granted develop - ment rights up to 350 units, which could be transferred to other multiple development zoned property on. this site. 3. The Edina Planning Commission reviewed the appli- cation for subdivision and petition for rezoning for the subject. property at its March 2, 1977 meeting The City Planning Com- mission Staff Report then given to the Edina Planning Commission states, in part, that the dedication of.Outlots A and B to the City is "a reasonable amount considering the flood plain eleva- tion, the amount of fill to the remaining flood plain, and the necessity to protect flood plain.areas to the maximum possible degree." The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the proposed subdivision and rezonings be approved, with the modification that Lots 1 through 13 be excepted from the final plat until access can be provided from the east, and that when the final platting of Lots.1 through 13 is accomplished, a 20 -foot easement must be dedicated between Lots 7 and 8 for utility pur- poses, and that Lots 3 through 9 must have access to the future northeasterly road and cul -de -sac from the Hanson property rather than to Lincoln-Drive; and also with the following requirements: -2- (i) That the developer.be required to dedicate Outlot A and Outlot B pursuant to the Subdivision.Dedication Report. (ii) That a grading.permit from the District and a flood plain permit.from the.City of Edina be obtained before any work,is done in the flood plain. (iii) That the Lincoln Drive /Malibu'Drive road plan be reviewed to determine whether that plan is the optimal road plan for the area or whether. Lincoln Drive should be a continuous road. 4. The Edina Park Board reviewed the application for subdivision and petition for rezoning at its March '8, 1977 meeting. The Park Board recommended to the City Council that the proposed subdivision and rezonings be approved contingent on the dedica- tion to the City of Edina of Outlot A and Outlot B. 5. The..Nine Mile Creek Watershed District [the "District "] Board of Managers reviewed the proposed subdivision at its.March 16, 1977 meeting. The Board of Managers noted that the proposed subdivision was in conformance with -the Overall Plan and agreed with the Edina Planning Commission'.s recommendation that Outlot A and Outlot B of the proposed sub division be dedicated to the City of Edina. The Board of Managers also indicated that the maximum allowable flood plain encroach- ment of 20 percent would be based on the total acreage of flood plain on the site;. thus, in order to develop Lots 35 -4.2 and -3- Lincoln Drive, no further flood plain encroachment would be allowed on Outlot A or Outlot B regardless of their public or private ownership status. 6. At the public hearing conducted by the Edina City Council on March 21, 1977, regarding the January 19 Proposal, the Proponent's representative stated that the Proponent agrees to and intends to dedicate Outlot A and Outlot B to the City of Edina. Prior to this statement of intent by the Proponent's representative, the Edina City Council indicated an-intent to refer the Proponent's application for subdivision and petition for rezoning back to the City staff and to various City advisory commissions and boards for further review and study and to obtain additional facts desired by the City Council. However, in reliance on Proponent's agreement to dedicate Outlot A and Outlot B to the City of Edina, made at the public hearing on March 21, 1977, the Edina City Council agreed to waive further review and study, and to waive further fact research. Therefore, in reliance on Proponent's agreement, the Edina City Council adopted a motion recommending approval of the plat, granting the rezoning, and authorizing issuance of the flood plain permit (with the under- standing that no plat, rezoning, or permit approval was then given or granted),and directing the City staff, in cooperation with the Proponent's representative, to prepare the necessary findings and reasons based on the matters set out in the report from the Planning Commission, the Environmental Quality Commission, and -4- the Planning staff, and on the information brought before the Council at its March 21 meeting, and such other information as may be appropriate, and directing that such findings and reasons be presented to the Council for furtlier review and possible approval on April 4, 1977, and if approved by the Council, and if the Proponent has then fulfilled the ordinance requirements for final plat approval, including the execution of the required subdivision agreement and the dedication of Outlots A and B to the City, that the Council then grant the rezoning and plat approval, and authorize issuance of the flood plain permit. 7. On April 4, 1977, the City Council continued the application for subdivision, petition for rezoning, and appli- cation for flood plain permit to the April 18, 1977 Council meeting. This continuance was granted because Proponent had not completed the documentation necessary for final approvals. 8. On April 5, 1977, the Proponent submitted a modified subdivision and rezoning request to the City Planning Department *[hereinafter sometimes called the "April 5 Proposal "]. The modified subdivision and rezoning proposed the addition of nine R -2 two- family dwelling lots on the west side of Lincoln Drive. The modified subdivision also proposed relocating the south line of Lot 41, 50 feet southerly. The proposed modifications to the subdivision would result in an added flood plain encroach- ment. However, the Proponent also presented plans showing removal of an equal amount of flood plain encroachment from -5- Lots 41 and 42 of the proposed subdivision. City staff deter- mined that net flood plain encroachment would remain at 20 percent. Staff also requested that adequate access to Outlots A and B be provided from Lincoln Drive. Proponent agreed to eliminate one R -2 lot from the west side of Lincoln Drive and to dedicate to the City a 60 -foot wide access point from Lincoln Drive to Outlots A and B. 9. On April 5, 1977, Proponent requested that the City of Edina contribute that portion of the presently due general taxes, special assessments, penalties, and interest on the area to be subdivided that is attributable to the area to be dedicated to the City for public parks, open space, and storm water holding and ponding areas. Staff determined that that portion of the proposed subdivision, modified as noted above, to be dedicated to the City for parks, open space, and storm water holding and ponding areas under the April 5 Proposal comprises approximately 36 percent of the total gross area of the proposed subdivision, and that the amount requested of the City, therefore, is approxi- mately $53,000. 10. On April 13, 1977, Staff advised Proponent that due to the modification of the petition for rezoning, the matter would again have to be reviewed by the City Planning Commission, and further advised Proponent to show that portion of the area to be dedicated to the City as Outlot A (formerly shown as Outlots A and B), and that Lots 1 through 13 of the proposed -G- subdivision should be shown as Outlot B for future platting when access.is available. 11. On April 18,.1977, the City Council referred the modified application for subdivision, petition for rezoning, and application for flood plain permit to the Planning Commission. 12. On April 19, 1977, the Planning Commission reviewed the modified application for subdivision, petition for rezoning, and application for flood plain permit for the subject property. The Planning Commission continued .the request until the June 11 1977 meeting to review the.location of the eight additional R -2 dots west of Lincoln Drive,and to.further review the location of Lincoln Drive and advisability of eliminating the cul -de- sacs at the south terminus of Lincoln Drive and the north terminus of Malibu Drive such that a through street would be created. 13. On April 20, 1977, Proponent requested that the City Council schedule a hearing date.•on the April 5 Proposal as soon as possible, notwithstanding the.action of.the Planning Commission. 14. On April 25, 1977, the,EQC reviewed the modified application for'subdivision; petition for rezoning, and appli- cation for flood plain permit for the subject property and recommended approval. 15. On May 2, 1977, the City Council received the report and action of the Planning Commission meeting of April 19, 1977, and also received the:Proponent'.s. request to schedule a -7- hearing date as early as possible. The City Council thereupon scheduled a hearing for May 16, 1977, for the purpose of con- sidering the Proponent's request for final plat, rezoning, and flood plain permit approval. The City Council further advised the Planning Commission that its recommendation must be submit- ted to the City Council by its May 16, 1977 meeting. 16. On May 11, 1977, the Planning Commission reviewed the modified application for subdivision and petition for re- zoning for the subject property. The Planning Commission recom- mended approval of the modified subdivision and rezoning. The Planning Commission further advised the City Council to review the proposed cul -de -sacs at the south terminus of Lincoln Drive and the north terminus of Malibu Drive in.order to determine whether such cul -de -sacs should be eliminated to create a through street. The Planning Commission noted, however, that from its perspective, either the proposed roadway plan with cul -de -sacs or a modified plan without cul -de -sacs would be acceptable. 17. The subject property was rezoned in 1964 to a combination of R -1 single - family dwelling district, R -2 two - family dwelling district, and R -4 multiple - family dwelling district. Proponent's petition for rezoning is to realign the boundaries of the previously granted rezoning with the boundaries of the land uses delineated in the April 5 Proposal. 18. The April 5 Proposal for subdivision and rezoning is in conformance with the Western Edina Land Use Plan adopted by the Edina City Council in January 1970. 19. Proponent acquired the subject property in 1961. Outlot A of the April 5 Proposal, when acquired by Proponent; was in the same physical condition as it is now. 20. The District adopted its first Overall Plan in March 1961, which established flood plain elevations for the entire reach of Nine Mile Creek. At that time the District adopted a policy of restricting encroachment onto the flood plain to 20 percent of the distance between the flood plain elevation contour and the creek channel. In 1973 the Overall Plan was revised and the 20 percent encroachment policy readopted to restrict net encroachment to 20 percent or less of the flood plain area of the parcel being considered for development. This revision was only to set out the actual practice of the District under the 1961 Overall Plan. The District includes lands from Lake Minnetonka to the Minnesota River, including Minnetonka, Hopkins, Edina, Eden Prairie, and Bloomington. 21. The City has been advised by the District that the District has never granted a variance from the 20 percent encroachment regulation. The District continues to enforce the 20 percent encroachment regulation. The District has not advised the City of Edina of any forthcoming revisions of the 20 percent encroachment regulation. 22. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 104, the City of Edina adopted a Flood Plain Management Ordinance (No. 815) in 1973. This ordinance was approved by the State of Minnesota, -9- Department of Natural Resources, pursuant to said statute. This ordinance requires that a special permit be obtained prior to a change of land use or the placement of any obstruction in the flood plain. This ordinance also states that no special permit shall be issued.unless the proposed use or obstruction has received approval of the applicable watershed district. 23. According to the official Flood Zone Profile of the City of Edina, established by Ordinance No. 815, as well as that of the District, established by its Overall Plan, the flood plain elevation of Nine Mile Creek at the subject property is 876, based upon Mean Sea Level [ ".M.S.L. "]; the flood plain ele- vations in the area of the subject property were established after detailed hydraulic studies of Nine Mile Creek and are based.upon the regional flood, as authorized by said Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 104; a regional flood is one that can be ex -. pected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100 -year recurrence interval. 24. Based on a flood plain elevation of M.S.L. 876, approximately one -half of Lot 1, Block 2, a small portion of Lincoln Drive, and nearly all of Lots 22 through 35, Block 1, Lot 2, Block 2, and Outlot A, as shown on Proponent's April 5 Proposal, are located below the elevation shown for the subject property in the City's official Flood Zone Profile, i.e., M.S.L. 876, and are within the flood plain of Nine Mile Creek as established by the City of Edina and by the District. IA- 25. The portions of the subject property below M.S.L. elevation 876 are subject,to .flooding by a regional flood. 26. The portions of the subject property below M.S.L. elevation 876 are subject to the provisions of ordinance No. 815 and to -the regulations of the District. 27. City staff have determined.that the filling re- quired to develop Lots 22 through 35, Block 1, Lots l sand 2, Block 2, and Lincoln Drive, as shown,on the Proponent's April.5 Proposal, with the removal of a portion of the existing fill from Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, will result in a net flood plain encroachment of approximately 20- ;percent. 28. .The City of Edina is presently eligible for the National Flood Insurance Program. 'A,community.eligibl:e for such insurance that fails to adequately enforce its-flood plain management regulation s.shall be subject to suspension of its flood insurance program eligibility. Such a suspension will have an adverse effect on the ability of residents to finance the purchase, sale, and remodeling of homes. 29. Since- 1.961,.numerous private.pr,operty. owners, as well as the City of Edina, have constructed improvements, public utilities, and parklands in reliance on the accuracy and constancy l of the flood plain elevations of Nine Mile Creek. Private resi- dences and businesses have been constructed at locations above flood plain elevations to preclude normal flood.damage'on the assurance that such flood plain elevations would not increase =11- and thus cause heretofore unknown and unexpected flood damages. In addition, the City of Edina has planned and constructed park- lands and storm drainage systems in reliance on the flood plain elevations. .30. The City of Edina Ordi -nance No..815 provides that "development within [the] flood plains must be regulated on the basis of and with full consideration of the impact °on the total creek along its full length. The District has determined after detailed study.of the watershed area and all subwatersheds therein, that to allow filling of the flood plain in excess of 20 percent along the full length of the creek would result in flooding of properties not presently subject to flooding. Flood plain lands such as'Outlot A of.the.April 5 Proposal, in their natural state, are a valuable land .resource whose preservation is necessary and desirable to (1) minimize the possibility of periodic flood- ing, resulting..in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of government services, and extraordinary public expenditures for projects to contain, store, and control. runoff, (2) minimize the rapid runoff of surface:waters, and (3) improve the quality of surface water discharged into Nine Mile Creek. 31. Barr Engineering Company, the consultant hydraulic engineers for the District, has advised the City that the flood plain elevation on the subject property has not been altered due to the improvements to County Road 18, which borders the west side of the subject property. Improvements to County Road 18 -12- have not altered this flood plain elevation because (a) the cul- vert under the old roadway that drained Nine Mile Creek was not altered at the -time of the County Road 18 improvement, and (b) at the time of the improvement, County Road 18 was elevated on pilings in order to allow unaltered flowage of flood waters. Barr Engineering Company has also advised the City that the flood plain elevation for the subject property will not change as a result of any water improvement projects now in the District's Overall Plan or now being contemplated by the District. 32. An hydraulic study of the Mud Lake area of Edina (Bredesen Park),conducted by Barr,.-Engineering Company at the re- quest of the City of Edina and the District, concluded that if the Mud Lake area is developed (as it is proposed) as an interpretive and recreational area, it is essential that no further flood plain encroachment (not even the 20 percent allowed by the District regulations) be permitted on any of the land owned by public agencies upstream of the Mud Lake area. The study further stated that development of the Mud Lake area as proposed will not require any change in the 20 percent encroachment allowed on privately owned lands pursuant to the revised Overall Plan. 33. In its natural state, Outlot A of the April 5 Proposal naturally serves as a basin for the.temporary storage of storm water runoff from the residential development proposed for the subject property as well as residential developments -13- located northerly and easterly of the subject property. The use of said Outlot A for storm water storage purposes would tend to produce a beneficial filtering and cleansing effect as well as a reduction of peak flows of surface water runoff discharged to Nine Mile Creek from residential developments. In the event of development of said Outlot A, these beneficial filtering and peak flow reduction effects would be substantially eliminated. 34. Said Outlot A of the April 5 Proposal adjoins a linear corridor of public open space abutting Nine Mile Creek that extends 3.5 miles southeasterly through the City of Edina, and the.addition of Outlot A will beneficially expand that open space area. 35. The City of Edina Open Space Committee, in its January 20, 1975 report to the City Council, recommended that the flood plain portion of the subject property (except the 20 percent allowed for development) should be acquired for public open space purposes. 36, Edina Ordinance No. 801 states that "[i]n every plat, replat, or subdivision of land to be developed for residen- tial. . .uses. . .a reasonable portion of such land shall be set aside and dedicated by the tract owner or owners to the general public as open space for parks, playgrounds, public open space, or storm water holding areas or ponds." -14- 37. Lots 1 through 13 on the proposed plat presently have no public road access; that access to them from the east and north has been delayed pending development of the property to the north and northeast, which, in turn, has been delayed due to litigation involving the Grand View Park Cemetery. 38. The Lincoln Drive /Malibu Drive road plan as shown on Proponent's proposed subdivision conforms with pre- viously directed traffic flow policies for Northwestern Edina. Therefore, based on the foregoing Findings, the City Council does hereby make the following DECISIONS: I. That under all facts and circumstances, Outlot A of the April 5 Proposal is a reasonable portion of the subject property to be dedicated to the general public as public park, public open space, and storm water holding and ponding areas, and that such dedication be made at the time of approving the final plat of the subject property. II. That -the City Council grant approval of the proposed subdivision (Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition), with the modifi- cations that Lots 1 through 13 be identified as Outlot B, and with the requirement that Outlot A be dedicated to the City of Edina for public park, public open space, and storm water holding and ponding purposes. -15- III. That the City Council approve the Proponent's petition for rezoning. IV. That the City Council authorize the issuance of a special flood plain permit for the purpose of constructing and developing Lots 22 through 35, Block 1, Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition; Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition; and Lincoln Drive of Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition. Issuance of the special flood plain permit is and shall be . conditioned on (a) net flood plain encroachment must not exceed 20 percent, and (b) a grading permit must be obtained from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. V. That the City of Edina contribute $53,000 toward the unpaid general taxes and installments of special assessments, including penalties and interest, that are currently due against the subject property, representing the amount thereof attributable to the area ( Outlot A) to-be dedicated to the City; that the whole of such unpaid taxes and assessments must be paid in full to Hennepin County by the use of the City's contribution and the funds of Proponent at the time of the recording of the final plat entitled "Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition." VI. That the City of Edina assure the Proponent that public road access to Lots 1 through 13 of the preliminary plat of the subject property ( Outlot B of the final plat) will be provided as shown on the Proponent's preliminary plat at a future date, and that the City make such access a condition of. any platting of that tract of land lying easterly of said Outlot B. ir, The above Decisions are made for the following REASONS: A. By Ordinance No. 801, a reasonable portion of land to be platted may be required to be dedicated, at time of plat approval, for public park, public open space, and storm water holding and ponding areas. B. The flood plain elevation of Nine Mile Creek at the subject property is M.S.L. 876. That portion of the subject property lying below elevation 876 is below the elevation shown on the Official Flood Zone Profile established by Ordinance No. 815, and within the flood plain established by the District, and is subject to flooding by a regional flood, and is, there- fore, subject to the regulations of Ordinance No. 815 and to the regulations of the District. Based on these.regulations, and their enforcement, no further fill will be allowed on Outlot A,and development of Outlot A is severely limited. C. By Ordinance No. 815, flood plain lands such as Outlot A must be managed on the basis of, and with full consider- ation of the impact on, the total creek along its full length. D. Flood plain lands such as Outlot A, in their natural state are a valuable land resource whose preservation is necessary and desirable to (1) minimize the possibility of periodic flooding, resulting in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of government services, and extraordinary public expenditures for projects to contain, -17- store, and control runoff, (2) minimize the rapid runoff of surface waters, and (3) improve the quality of surface water discharged into water courses. E. The development of flood plain lands such as Outlot A in excess of 20 percent along the length of the creek would adversely affect the flood plain elevations on which private property owners and the City of Edina have relied, and cause unknown and unexpected flood damages. F. Failure of the City to enforce its flood plain management regulations may result in suspension of its flood insurance program eligibility, with a resulting adverse effect on the ability of residents to finance the purchase, sale, and remodeling of homes. G. The land use resulting from-the proposed sub- division and rezonings, with Outlot A dedicated to the City for public park, public open space, and storm water holding and ponding purposes, is a proper land use and consistent with the previously established planning objectives of the City of Edina. H. Outlot A is adjacent to ari existing linear cor- ridor of public open space adjoining Nine Mile Creek,and in its natural state is a significant natural and scenic area adjoining Nine Mile Creek, and will be a beneficial addition to that open space. -18- I. Retention of Outlot A in its natural state will promote and implement the planning and flood plain management objectives of the City of Edina and the District by.the creation of significant public open space for storm water holding and ponding areas along Nine Mile Creek. J. The Proponent agreed, at the public hearing before the City Council on March 21, 1977, to dedicate Outlot A (previously Outlots A and B) to the City, and the City Council has relied on that agreement. K. The issuance of the flood plain permit for the purpose of constructing and developing Lots 22 through 35, Block 1, and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, of Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition, and Lincoln Drive, with removal of some of the existing fill from said Lots 1 and 2, will result'in a flood plain -en- croachment that is not at variance with the Edina Flood Plain Ordinance or the District's regulations. L. Outlot B (Lots 1 through 13) of the proposed subdivision has no public road access at present, and develop- ment of that outlot must be delayed pending obtaining.of such public road access. M. The,Lincoln Drive /Malibu Drive road plan as shown on the Proponent's proposed subdivision conforms with the Western Edina Circulation Plan as adopted by the City Council. N. The contribution by the City of Edina of $53,000 toward the unpaid general taxes, installments of special assessments, -19- -20- MEMORANDUM TO: William W. Lewis, Chairman of Edina Planning Commission FROM: Gordon L. Hughes, Planning Director SUBJECT: Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition Subdivision and Rezoning Request by Wallace B. Kenneth On March 2, 1977, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a 42 -lot subdivi- sion which contained 22 single family lots, 18 two family dwelling lots:, two multiple family dwelling lots, and two outlots. Among,-the conditions - recommended by the Planning Commission as part of plat approval.. was the dedication to the City of the two outlots. This condition was imposed in that these outlots were not developable due.to flood plain conditions. On March 21, 1977, the City Council conducted a hearing regarding Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition. Following considerable discussion, the City Council recommended approval of the plat, granting.of the rezoning, and issuance of. -the flood plain permit, and'instructed the staff to prepare necessary findings of fact based upon an agreement by Mr. Kenneth to dedicate the outlots to the City. Also considered were the favorable recommendations of the EQC and Planning Commisssion, The Council further stated.that the matter be considered again at the April 4,1977, meeting (or as soon as possible), and if the findings of fact are approved and if Mr. Kenneth has fulfilled the ordinance requirements for final plat approval, including a developer's agreement and deeds to the outlots, then the City Council would give first and second readings for the rezoning, preliminary and final plat approval, and authorize the issuance of a flood plain permit. Following the March 21, 1977, Council meeting, Mr. Kenneth asked permission to modify his proposed subdivision. He noted that at the time the preliminary plat was prepared, he did not know that the two outlots would have to be dedicated to the City. Mr., Kenneth, thus, proposed to modify his subdivision by adding eight two- family dwelling lots on the west side of Lincoln Drive and relocating the - south line of one of the.apartment lots 50 feet southerly. The reasons for such modifications are two fold. First, Mr. Kenneth desired to. use the maximum 20 percent flood plain encroachment specified by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed Dis- trict as well as the.City. In.that the City required dedication of most of the flood plain,.he desired to maximize the use of the property remaining in his owner - ship. Second, Mr. Kenneth desired to obtain full use of Lincoln Drive by. adding eight R -2 lots on the west side of this street. He was agreeable to dedicating a 60 -foot wide area.on Lincoln Drive for public access to the outlots deeded to the City. All other features of the proposed subdivision remained unchanged. On April 19, 1977, . the Planning Commission reviewed the modifications to the sub- division and rezoning request. The Planning Commission agreed to table.the request until its June 1, 1977, meeting for further study of the road alignment, advisabil- ity of joining the two cul -de =sacs of .Lincoln Drive and Malibu, and the.location of the proposed lots'. The Commission also requested that Lincoln Drive be staked to assist.the Commission in its review of the site. Following the April 19, 1977, Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Kenneth indicated to staff that he felt that he had received.assurances from the Council on March 21, William W. Lewis, Memorandum Page 2 . r May 4, 1977 1977, that if he returned to the Council with necessary documents and net ordinance. _ requirements, he.would then receive final approvals. He felt that the modifi cations proposed since that meeting were minor and that the basic concept, road alignments, and land use proposed on March 21, 1977, remained unchanged. He thus requested that the City Council schedule a hearing date as early as possible for the purpose of granting final approvals. On May 2, 1977, the City Council.received the report and action of the Planning Commission of April-,19, 1977, and also.received the request by Mr. Kenneth to schedule a hearing as early as possible. The Council had previously been advised of the modifications proposed by Mr.. Kenneth subsequent to the March 21, 1977, meeting. The City Council, thereupon, scheduled.a hearing for May 16, 1977, for the purpose of considering Mr. Kenneth's.request for.final approvals. The Council noted that its intent on March 21, 1977, was to proceed as expeditiously as possible toward the resolution of this matter. The Council noted that additional recommenda- tions from the Planning.Commission would be welcomed. The Council further noted, however, that if the Planning Commission desired to submit additional recommenda- tions, a special meeting should be held in order to provide the Council with such recommendations prior to the May 16, 1977, hearing. Please advise me if you desire to hold a special meeting to prepare additional recommendations for the May 16, 1977, Council meeting. GLH:nr 5 -4 -77 cc: Planning Commission, James Van Valkenburg, Mayor Warren C. Hyde, City Manager MEMORANDUM TO: Warren C. Hyde, City Manager DATE: April 12, 1977 FROM: Gordon Hughes, Environmental Planner RE: Wallace Kenneth Property Thomas Erickson, City Attorney G At its March 21, 1977, meeting, the City Council reviewed a proposed subdivision and rezoning for the above - referenced property. At that - time,- the-City Council adopted a motion recommending approval of the proposed plat, rezonings, and necessary flood plain permits. The motion was adopted in reliance on Mr. Kenneth's _- _____statement of intent-to _dedicate_to__the_ City-that po.rtio.n - o- f._the_pl at-- i.denti. -f -ied as -- Outlots A and B which represent that portion of the.flood plain of Nine Mile Creek which cannot be filled for development purposes.. 'The City Council, in adopting this motion, indicated to Mr. Kenneth its intent to grant final plat approval, rezoning approval, and a flood plain permit as expeditiously as possible provided that Mr. Kenneth fulfill necessary ordinance requirements including the execution of a developer's agreement and the execution of deeds to the City for Outlots A and B. Since the March 21, 1977, meeting, staff has met frequently with Mr. Kenneth. Mr. Kenneth has proposed the following modifications to the proposed subdivision' (attached): 1. The addition of eight R -2 lots on the west side of Lincoln. Drive. -. -- 2. The extension of the south line of Lot 41, fifty feet southerly. These modifications result in an ad ded-encroachment onto the flood plain. Mr. Kenneth, however, has indicated his intent to remove an equal amount of encroachment from Lots 41 and 42. The net flood plain encroachment proposed for the entire parcel thus remains at 20 percent, which is in conformance with flood plain regulations. Mr. Kenneth has also requested that the City compensate him for that portion of.the subdivision which he would deed to the City. He proposes that the City pay, credit, or transfer that portion of the presently due general taxes, special assessments, and interest and penalties which are attributable to that portion of the subdivision deeded to the City. Staff has determined that: 1. $116,690.14 are presently due on the entire parcel (includes general taxes and special assessments). 2. Approximately $30,000 in interest and penalties are due on the entire parcel. 3. 15.8 acres are proposed to be dedicated to the City. This represents 36 percent of the entire parcel. On a square footage basis, the portion of the general taxes, special assessments, and interest and penalties attributable to that area dedicated to the City would be approximately $53,000. Staff has also contacted the attorneys for the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District regarding the District's financial participation in acquiring the flood plain portion MEMORANDUM Warren C. Hyde Page 2 April 12, 1977 of the property. The District's attorneys policy to participate up to 25 percent in The District's attorneys feel that such an flood plain would be appropriate. RECOMMENDATION have advised us that it is the District's the acquisition of flood plain lands. expenditure for acquiring the Kenneth After reviewing the history of the subject property, the present request, the future use of the flood plain if left in private ownership, and the basis in law for re- quiring the dedication of 36 percent of the subject property, we recommend that the City compensate Mr. Kenneth as requested. If the Watershed District participates in this compensation, the City's balance would be approximately $40,000. GLH:nr cc: Mayor and City Council lhl _ CHE ; ,�o OWNER 4 DEVELOPER: SURVEYOR SDESI G ADDI lo 13 Wallace Kcnnd h '. 5101 Lincoln Eaan Field Drier' _ 1 90 \• 3� \� \ `1 ` �• / �`� : ---- Edina, MN 2M36 70 15 l':a a;a Minneapolis. DESCRIPTION: Tel. No, y:o !! _ `° '1`^_"� —•4� -: , I That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Norf;, ••c t O ship 117. Ranne 21, lying North of a line dra:.n from 3 p- said N. - _ I � . //� \ ' •.r��..\.`,',�i. ` , �`;� ' srlh . st Quarter of the North"rest Carter, d'st: -• ; P Northwest corner thereof, to a point in the East line et sr (! II f ' •,to • ' �� �t' /' the Nnrlhr:est Quarter. distant 631.73 feet South of t',e r,r I, except ` ,o .:� .` J pt the East 00.00 feet (hereof. _ r A f� Y•, �.�, f •���, 1 4 - `L\ \ • • - \ - 7 : (, �- - Jhal part of the West Ha1Lne the Souln:est Quarter d S �� ;,� ,. • s 8 . r. • :� Range 21, lying West of thA,63. 10fcrt thereof, and yinc = I i `i `•fir ' �\ :\.; 10 M of Intertachen Hills and the same extended East; except tr;, wi(hin the plat of Interlachen hills. I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or !1 'el. • r and that 1 an a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the I_ Ij I Minnesota. Dated this 2i9h day of December, 1976 _Revised January 19, 1977. ELAN, FIELD & NOWAK, Surveyors R" visa _ I I I by hLnnes ss ; ` . ala Registration Kw. c �1 !� 5110 1 :i� 100 i Z \ \ : s --' Lots 1 -13 and lots Z6 - 3" .: !II Lots 14 - 25 and Lots 3: - '( 1 \ •�.3 I Lots •III -46 are to&, R•4 I \1 \' I NOTE IblootuIififyanddrz' ^a_=:: 15 'ti all front lot fines A. -__ : � -� •. :rail . ;:: 1 � : _ . _ . = - - "- - - �j� • III ' _ � �7_ _ f \•t!�''.:1,4 �_ ___ .. I y h j d li 1 �E: �• ��I, TS - -- -- - -- �. - 400.1 — i%" ! 1 vi as a ii _ .�' r . I f"' rr- .. .�J - - , , - _ 111 I I - tw+ JI f Qo TC6T /ti• ; J` r '.� I l(r, � � ��3' - _ I \'. \ � `I I P •'\ 'I il• S � ! �, •i `�' �\ ` tib� \. ,I _ I� '�1�_��, 33 III. A. MEMORANDUM TO: Warren C. Hyde, City Manager FROM: Gordon Hughes, Environmental Planner RE: Interlachen Hills Third Addition - Wallace B. Kenneth On March 21, 1977, and April 4, 1977, the City Council reviewed the above - referenced subdivision and petition for rezoning. Further consideration of this matter was scheduled for the April 18, 1977, meeting. Since the March 21, 1977, and April 4, 1977, meetings, Mr. Kenneth has proposed several modifi.cations to his subdivisicn and rezoning requests. Staff, thus, recommends that the proposed Interlachen Hills Third Addition and the petition for rezoning be referred to the Planning Commission for its review April 19, 1977. GH:nr 4 -14 -77 cc: Mayor and City Council I ,4TION MAP. < 7 7 t I r X :ALNL ;i!c Gt: m ZZ SIDE -LE.E . I . . . . . . . . . Ji: mi subdivision z®iy S-77-2 and Z-77-4 REQUEST NUMBER: LOCATION: E. of Lincoln Dr. W. of Malibu Dr. extended REQUEST: -2-2 -ginalp family I(It-, 18 two family lots, 2 outiots, 2 apartment lots mage of edins village. plan. ing de"rtment v, EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 2, 1977 Subdivision Wallace Kenneth. Generally located east of Lincoln Drive S -77 -2 and and west of Malibu Drive extended. R -4 Multiple Family Rezoning Residential District and R -1 Single.Family Residential Z -77 -4 District to R -4 and R -2 Multiple Residential Districts and R -1 Single Family Residential District. Refer to: Attached proposed plat identifying areas to be rezoned and surveyor's statement identifying square footage of lots. The commissions may recall that approximately a year ago the owner of this property submitted partial plans for development of his property. There was considerable controversy at that time regarding the total development plan of the property. Since that time the staff has met on numerous occasions and during the last three months has been meeting intensively with Mr. Kenneth, his surveyors, and his attorneys. The result of those meetings is the attached proposed subdivision which divides the property into 42 lots and two outlots. Twenty -two of those jots will be single family, averaging 14,500 square feet. Eighteen lots would be used for double bungalows, averaging over 17,000 square feet per lot. The final two lots which are identified on the attached graphic as Lots 41 and 42 would be used for apartments. In connection with the plat, the developer has suggested dedicating Outlot A which represents 5.5 percent of the total area on the plat. It is the developer's desire to retain Outlot B. The commissions may recall that this property is adjacent to Nine Mile Creek in the extreme southwest corner of the plat. Nearly all of Outlots A and B and a*portion of Lots 41 and 42 are in the flood plain. A portion of Lincoln Drive and a portion of Lots 35 through 40 are also in the flood plain. Staff has determined that the filling which must take place for the development of Lots 35 through 40, Lincoln Drive, and 41 through 42 will result in 20 per- cent encroachment into the flood plain. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District allows up to a 20 percent encroachment into the flood plain on any tract of land. It is thus apparent that Outlot B cannot be filled without exceeding the 20 percent encroachment rule. It is absolutely essential that encroachment be limited in flood plain areas to maintain adequate flood storage and to prevent undue increases in flood elevations which could cause serious property damage. The proposed plat requires access from the north end of Lincoln Drive which is an established road and from the Parkwood Knolls area which has not been platted. Access from the south would be an extension of Malibu Drive through an outlot set aside for that purpose in the Edina Green Plat. We are later in the agenda requiring the dedication of that outlot in connec- tion with the rezoning and the development of that property. The owner is in agreement with that dedication. This area was rezoned in 1964 after three years of meetings and compromises between the developer, neighbors, and the City. The proposed rezonings are Wallace Kenneth Request Planning Commission Staff Report Page 2 March 2, 1977 primarily down- zoning which reflect the revised o 350Vunitseto bea developed itted. That earlier rezoning could have allowed up in Outlot B (the exact number of units depends on the method of development). Recommendation: The Planning and Environmental staff would recommend approval of the proposed requests for rezoning and subdivision contingent on the following: 1. Lots 1 through 13 be excepted from the final plat until access can be provided from the east. 2. That for the final platting of Lots 1 through 13 a 20 foot easement be dedicated between Lots 7 and 8 for utility purposes. 3. That Lots 1 through 13 face the north cul -de -sac road and egress only onto that road. 4. That developer be required to dedicate Outlot D and Outlot A as shown on the attached parkland dedication report. This dedication is deemed to be a reasonable amount considering the flood plain elevation, the amount of fill to the remaining flood plain, and the necessity to protect flood p ain \ areas to the maximum possible degree. _ xw.� 01� � J ^� per l + • i C.p�be ra.cfar'r. .i +.. ..+�i.,cri,cr t Grading peimit from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and flood plain per- mit from City of Edina must be obtained prior to any work in the flood plain. GL:nr `. 2 -25 -77 USE PLAN f �` �� �r� ' C, '� Ci! 41 r I wpyfzv M--- oppr 7 tn ll� oved msum 1-7-70 plonng com F7 ;apt —14 Nl' s. -f7l: I 71 1-4-i A , G - 4- X r fr t i F T . L:.,l 7— 44, 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . ..... .. I . jj ...... . .. .0 s.pa 4 pw I r A —ze Lai %r4...... .... t - t -9 m X00 •r wtr w nn PARK t CHURCH SCHOOL PAROCHIAL SCHOOL SCHOOL DIST. BOUNDARY- VILLAGE LIMITS -- - -- TM MAP IS NOT THE "OFFICIAL ZONING MAP" REFERENCED IN EDINA VILLAGE ORD04ANCE all (ZONING ORDINANCE I. BUT RATHER IS A REPRESENTATION OF EXISTING ZONING. 5' ZONING CD O R -1 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT X00 •r wtr w nn PARK t CHURCH SCHOOL PAROCHIAL SCHOOL SCHOOL DIST. BOUNDARY- VILLAGE LIMITS -- - -- TM MAP IS NOT THE "OFFICIAL ZONING MAP" REFERENCED IN EDINA VILLAGE ORD04ANCE all (ZONING ORDINANCE I. BUT RATHER IS A REPRESENTATION OF EXISTING ZONING. 5' ZONING DISTRICTS O R -1 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ® A-2 Q-3 TWO FAMILY DISTRICT NO MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT R-4 MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT ® �2 R-5 PRO �T MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT Q i PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 1.2.3.4 INS ` 0 - 1 OFFICE DISTRICT i 0 - 2 OFFICE DISTRICT 2 O allD C -1 REGIONAL MEDICAL DISTRICT COMMERICAL DISTRICT (NEIGHBORHOOD) ® 6�U ®1�` 50 C -2 C-3 C-4 COMMERICAL DISTRICT !COMMUNITY) COMMERICAL DISTRICT ( REGIONAL) COMMERICAL DISTRICT (AUTOMOTIVE) om PC -(1 PLANNED COMMERICAL DISTRICT I APO AUTOMOBILE PARKING DISTRICT ® PIO PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT uorh r L l l E ^I s l E I T x,i' J I I 1 7� COUNTZY CUB F�' T� M_ 7,.1,` a —T —� - tz 1^ I 3 e ~ � a Lam- �• �� _.,L f _"`. - �Yr_7'I I1 r--: Intl. 1 -, j. BOTATTO:+S Ii ���i. 'd \� L Y c.al :Ja' drtt•• o! .nF of [b. d4 trlcu 1 ' /?' �J '`� �-: LI �•�)I `. •t• rttb respect to the b- �� , Vh.r• ot- It•tetT ..l the follwln{ NL•• n•11 .PP1YI .J. .y I� v.•• . ( f I - l.dlut•d H to •o.t.B rD• L —f- _ trt•1/ fellwtnA s[r.•r• or ..I, tign 1 II'jT f I� f l� ` (, ^/ /..-. Hr {.:I ! •fl�j, 1, laud. [i.s trdluudo s .pD rose lollwt.A • in rt tnt -of +e) Il.••. Iv �y /�,.L J . -__ __ �K �N O� a ^/! -/. ,sl 1 o•Lrued • II 1 }' I I.I .. _ 1 ; / I l_ r. .. , . ��I�r rq line• dull e. c •n.11 b• mrvwd •`1 ' _ lrt•IY f.11wlnA Sat Ilse• %} i .0 n. •�..'. - -]I I ,. Basnd.rt•• ledtuud a sPDro• '4' :lt'•-•'- ' I .l�xw.J Oe N4. ,'. LT.. ' i•i r f.1 _L a wtn lot lln.•. 1 ;.1 ' I ,, -. _l - -- i •trd.t ltus or lot ltr• ` y. -• MyT: J� /wM•r1•• indite' u *7p4 ra•tru1T e•u llel w test ^^ 1•-�'lf i rT --� _ I .. , . ). ll•l tb•rs t., 'd' .^ r� I y tie. -^ •toll b• too rv•d u D•4n D•r• ,t !31}.. {, t: 1 �Jy /��it )) I ;y..'t ...::. n.try d le fe11w such .h ... It -. �'1+ i '1 I i ���'✓ k aJl� ...� 1 � I�t �'t , {. ewod•r le• fellwtnA . •Wore lt.• sn.11 b• eo h' - �•. '. ,N r :r1 the •touuto (.l•• love• • re••..n•ble doubt •• to the r\, . •C`,C -,, ,I / c Yy ' l I�t'. i ` 1•LL.ns of al.e• utr.etly III I • /�� ,, , '1 •1 ■:.- �l l._��a`E�.. ytcc :.il,,,< ,. Yn•r• eDPllutton of •la L•nlu da.ran•d 1 V b— nd•ll•• 0•tre•n lr. dlet [t l�:' tl,• r•AU Ion, vn l•• , .' ,�,f,l ••,, I I' - at•ulct •nsll •„vsrn tn.. t P•rc•l 1. Ru.•t trT rb. Ao•rd of Avp..l. . l ,-g (1 I13..• . f"�i 1 v —. .�' ..had_... •n•11 b• t n.Ia•r•d Le h.w Fr•c•dnu ._ � .. I. 1- I I " •S l� • deull for •. •r• .dw. It aln4•s. Ij ! I , 1.1 Z 'r 1.� - mr ts• ►... rp 1. a•t.r.l.mA autr4cL b- � n i ��� � I� � l �rna - \, f , I O :)-4no if CA LOHGDNDERR I 71 -----�DR I -v ................. 4.f ............ .......... .IR C4e CGS ERRY OPIVE _LLI_Ll ............ .......... PI IE TT L D to � to to - • 71 } `r• :�� \\ •` ~~ t , f • `/ O1':NER &DEVELOPER: SURL'EY0R SCESIC' . . '� ;;•.J`s •\` \\ ill \s• I r / 7 1� tYallx!'Arnn�ih (!art. WIJ ' 5101 Lincoln Cri,e• it. liVayrtu ' �� t •�, •t J �• e 1 na• h14 ;533S hsinneepot s. '�� i.. �$' + /'• C' CESCRIP110Y: • . - .90 •� :\ . \, . • ; `• . f t `_ that part of the Norttr.'W Quarter of ICC XorY':rst %.r' _.,� +- , ti • ` �. +•• ship W. kin,e 21, lying Nticrlo of a True arr..n Iron a r v --�•� • said tl;rt:: .al Jaarter ct the t:arli:Kt JJarlrr, t ,t: ' •' ' �- - r _ -~;� ' - Ilorlh �^.st Cnrntr Irierr,t, to a p•rnt in the East True o; s' s • a i �� �} '• ^• .' \ -' 3' (� " the Nnrtnr Kl 3uartrr, d;ignl 631.73 feet Soul's of 1' t r 1 I • \� '� �,� l% �r+ eH rpl llrr East -1111L n11tr1 l! . nrol. • ! � •� :s 4;• � C I the t':nt Ila ut,ha�tU . : So -t e Kt Quarter _1 G Ilia p: rt C L lJ kcl teerrai• ara y� Ctest of Rax;e :IYrry •'• r• .t \ �f 10 of lnlCrlachenrj hills analite sin _t.tuWedElsl;except i. :r . \� t l •`• riU+in Ipe pled tnterLachen hills. .. � t I' �' •• iii.` % � � �'��.i . `� � r I h("�*� � ceRat This D'an nas Ore?areQ SY me or •,r _ :- • dlhatV a duty Registered land Surveyor ur!:r t-e atd this 2cih day of DecemCer, 1910. Revised January 19, 1477. ELAN, F1ElB b ti0s': Alit ` ; •1 1 : 1 ��- i I . - Surveyors �,._ 1 1 Dry - -` : j \a '•,`` ~ 15 - = —, — Atinnesaa Re ; lstra::ca vie .1 16.' N 1 ^NOTE lots 1 -13 and L ��is I oar l�F 2' SV 1_4 •�� Lots 14-25ar_lWi- ! IOCSJI-= duel: 10 toot ut;i:ty a • SC,ALG: {• �il i1.�1 _ •`�.t \ 1 ag (roe bil,rn it v. �•1, r �- t� Ig s 1 + � �: i' •- 22 = rig �I J`V tNiC. IN I R S r I�I� ;' 1 `.• f _f'~ C,•9 � D L._� ct Lei ell Ife jtJdi�g�G Pr��oSed �,.,._:= .-,,�- —� -- ... ; �j'• �� }� ;1 t -- ,s 1 b ;IA-1 ' 1 ;' t .v r4 a 71 ' •�r, rte;. Y -'•'' � /,� - •' r \ y� I� l //t �1!.Ltt•.. /. i /rr 'a'. 'JA VI �. ' rf �r if 7413 WAYZATA BOULEVARD '-�' • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55425 Es�13. �� 1.971 jPhone: 546.6837 PRESIDENT ARTHUR E. OSTLUND " Z-1D W E10% February 1, 1977 VICE PRESIDENT VERNON A. NICNOLS DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE REZONED FROM R -4 TO R -2 That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 30, and that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 117, Range 21, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of MALIBU HEIGHTS, thence South 89 degrees 31 minutes 48 seconds West (assumed bearing) along the North line of EDINA GREEN a distance of 329.99 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence North 4 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds West, a distance of 145 feet; thence North 20 degrees 53 minutes 54 seconds East, a distance of 390.49 feet; thence North 14 degrees 40 minutes 47 seconds West, a distance of 130 feet; thence North 0 degrees 10 minutes 47 seconds West, a distance of 250 feet; thence South 18 degrees 21 minutes 06 seconds West, a distance of 187.36 feet; thence South 45 degrees 58 minutes 15 seconds West, a distance of 104.63 feet; thence South 8 degrees 13 minutes 15 seconds West, a distance of 191 feet; thence South 23 degrees 38 minutes 25 seconds West, a distance of 200 feet; thence South 10 degrees 27 minutes 56 seconds West, a distance of 141 feet; thence South 10 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East a distance of 127 feet to the North line of EDINA GREEN; thence North 89 degrees 31 minutes 48 seconds East, along the North line of EDINA GREEN, a distance of 150 feet to the actual point of beginning. 'Fu11 -77 _ 3,eD ADD/ V - rf `; •�- `, \^ ' �� OPINER &DEVELOPER: SUfR'EYOi SCESIG'.` i v ;�� %Vallxe KrnnctD [:an. Fi,'IJ S s \ �� j I i �.•, 5101 Lincoln Drive )c 13Walral1 - \` \\ '� •� '1 s J a /�+ Edina, MN 5',23$ Rlinneepoin. • 90 �•�`� •__ a t',' 1 (IL\i DESCRIPTION: `�'. `' • •, ` J •. I- That part of the Mrttr-est Ouartrr M Ire Wrl° crst scar o •:�Z . JI k?.. , ` ' i.•`- ship 117. Rame 21, lying North cl a line dn:a from a r _ said tl;rl':.st Jvarler of the Y.ortl:rst daart,r, C st.' -1 .. • `• \. ,�_. .ia �'. �— f� .I ��� • (1 North:.rsl corner Ihrrr�f, to a p int in the Czst lint of s • ill i \` ....4 Z � ••\ -� �' the Northc:rst Juarter, distant 611.13 feet Soul' of 1 •e F.. ra.rfA Ihr East d;0.MIce h,rme • I (�• j �� '� ;- \ f is irk : I a i J That D`rl rl the Ciest I tall. e In; SY_t •crst Quarter ri S . � A�.,� �.�� ��Y° � • • •; �' \ � ' � Rance ?!, Iyirul Nest of me'`•.f 11J 1x:1 tr.ereat, ar.a yire ''I ; N �` ,t s1' 8 • r' 0 • of intrrlachen Hills and the sam! exttnd d East; except t- ' riLhin the plat of Interlxhen HMS. t`i f il. a� e +• • r `'; :� s; ;) , 9 ' I here'.y certify that this plan eras preparr4 ry tae or -' J{�'J• j I I d "'' ; T-, s` \��\' y and that 1 am a duty Registered Land Surveyor Ur" �r t'e s- \` .` ,ie 1 il:innesota , .•' - Dal•d this 211h day of December. 1976. 111 `I' '• \ , ` "•` Revised January 19, 1977. EGAN. FIELD & t10t:ai; I I 11� '�I .• \ �� �1� ( surveyors by MinnesotaRegistrahon - r �• l ) 570 ,t \ r-• _ w t t �'aar NOTE: Lots I -13 and Ws r f Lots 14 -Z5 ar_ Ws Lots sl -=a are t::.'''- SCAf.E: �.��Q 1 4 F},f•� _ 1� 1 ` y.•? NOTE: 10 fad util.r' "I cc-' - s •` 1 all from: ld leers 10 �•� s t to -a I i 3; • 20 _ I _— 1 to R"4 ovi`•�,� ; fl1 eS i►C'Svl +' ^'J ZoN: N� � w� t. � � ,. Li-- j F ��S' - :; --� � _ - --400.1 — it 1, F =� r . • 2� _'-- . i L ILI I� `tea _ J ';tj13�,- r�., .,'' :r yf '�i3 •�,� '" � lien `. `� f'{ J. •J s,i "'3 0 . ��� ., }¢ -•I �1� 1 oarcaT .4 .� ,�v tsa,ono c.. v� 9 � r T , , t. r ' r •�, � ' wpm 1 •1 �,, • r /!.5 :.. e• T....T1 �. _.. �� l` I�L! ��• .0 / '17 .� ��/ 9./ ' �. 1:\\I 1� I•. / �, i > Te15 WAY2.ATA 90J1c' /ARC � MIN`:EAPUt15, MINNESOTA 55425 J � ` -� Prone: 546 -6837 PRESIDENT ARTHUR E. OSRUND December 20, 1976 VICE PRESIDENT VERMON A. NICY.OLS ,,,•.,,a:; :.N, , �.::,:� LOT AREAS IN PROPOSED INTERLACHEN HILLS 3RD ADDITION LOT NUMBER AREA IN SQUARE FEET LOT NUMBER AREA IN SQUARE FEET 1 13,000 24 20,200 (Z -Z 2 16,000 25 16,800 3 15,000 26 16,570 4 15,800 27 17,500 :5 13,000 28 16,200 ; 6 15,200 29 22,000 1.7 .:. • 16, 800 S r 30 :; ...: , 24,400 SF n 8 17,500 31 14,500 9 18,900 32 17,600 10 17,300 33 14,200 11 12,500 34 13,800 12 12,600 35 15,250 13 12,800J 36 15,300 14 22,000 37 15,000 15 18,200 38 15,000_. 16 17,000. 39 15,000 17 16,600 40 22,000 18 17,1001 9-;L 42 154,000 19 17,100 108,($00 20 17,050 Outlot A :.80,000. 21 17,050 Outlot B 772.,000.. 22 17,050 23 16,100 .. Total area in Interlachen Hills 3rd Addition - 33.02 acres Subdivision No. ,S 7 7- 'SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT T0: Planning Commission Park Board Commission Environmental Quality Department FROM: P1 anni ng jt ( 0�s rJT 2,, P5C� e N SUBDIVISION NAME: 3 '3 � ©� � LAND VALUE: ) LAND SIZE: Date: (By: 5% _ $ The developer of this subdivision has been required to A. grant an easement over part of the land 9 % of the land' C `� g, dedicate s . �" as a fee in lieu of land C. donate $ -as a result of applying the following policy: A. Land Required (no density or intensity may be used for the first 5% of land dedicated) adjacent to an existing park and the addition is a ' �1, If property the park. beneficially expands f roperty is 6 acres or will be combinedf it6 acrerparkaications 2. I P so that the end result will be a min A3_ If property abuts a natural lake, pond,' or stream. be water holding and will be dredged 4, If property is necessary fo r lace. or otherwise improved and will be a scenic p is .a place of significant natural, scenic or historic 5. if the property value. [] 6. B. Cash Required ❑ 1. In all other instances than above. ❑ 2. 'i I ADDENDUM TO EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OF MARCH 2, 1977 It is apparent that item 4 of the recommendation contained in the above - referenced report requires additional clarification. In 1961, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District adopted its overall plan. This plan established flood plain elevations for the entire watershed district and specified a policy regarding encroachment into the flood plain. This policy stated that net encroachment into the flood plain must be restricted to,20 percent of the distance between the flood zone ele- vation contour and the creek channel. The policy was adopted after a detailed study of the watershed area showed that allowing filling in excess of 20 percent of the flov-d plain would result in flooding of properties not pre- sently subject to flooding. Since the adoption of the overall plan the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District has never granted a variance from the 20 percent encroachment regulation. The-City of Edina has also used the 20 percent encroachment criteria since the adoption of its flood plain ordinance. Since 1961,. numerous property owners as well as the City of Edina have con- structed improvements, public utilities, and parklands in reliance on the 20 percent encroachment rule and the protection it provides to all property owners by its preventing the creation of the public harm caused by extensive flood plain filling. As an example, the 1972 Mud Lake Hydrologic Study con- cluded that "if the Mud Lake area is developed as an interpretive and recrea- tional area, it is essential that no further flood plain encroachment be per- mitted on any of the land owned by the public agencies. It will also be necessary to limit flood plain encroachment on privately owned lands to 20 percent set forth in the revised Overall Plans." Thus, the City has proceeded with plans for Mud Lake with the reliance of adequate flood storage upstream. In addition, the City of Edina participates in-the Federal Flood Insurance Program. In order to maintain.eligibility in this program, the City must properly. enforce its flood plain ordinance in such that homeowne-es and lending institutions can adequately predict the extend of flooding and its potential damage within the city. 1. The Edina Flood Plain Ordinance notes that: "It is hereby found and declared that lands within the respective flood plains, as hereafter defined, of Nine Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek in the Village, in their natural state, are a valuable land resource; that development within such flood plains must be regulated on the basis of and with full consideration of the impact on the total creek along its full length; that such lands are or may be subject to loss or impairment of value and physical degradation through uncoordinated and unplanned development; that such lands are necessary and desirable to avoid rapid run -off of surface waters, to prevent polluting materials Addendum to March 2, 1977 Edina Planning Commission Staff Report Page 2 from being carried directly into the natural stream, to preserve adequate ground water infiltration, to protect surface and ground water supplies, to minimize the passibility of periodic flooding. resulting in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of governmental services, extraordtnary .public expenditures for-projects to contain, store and control run - off; and impairment of the tax. base, al.l of which adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. . It is, therefore, the purpose of this ordinance to guide and regulate the orderly development of such lands to insure mainten -. ance and preservation, in their natural. state, of needed and desirable natural water storage. areas and water courses and their shorelines and adjacent vege- tation and topography and to minimize the possibility of, and pollution and losses resulting from, run -off and flooding, all thereby to promote and pro- tect the public health, safety and welfare." Thus, for the protection from flooding of both public and private property and improvements, scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, and other desirable and necessary functions of the flood plain, the staff has recon nended that Outlots A and B of Interlachen"Hills Third Addition be dedicated to the City. It is cur opinion that the-..public benefits accrued by flood plain preservation out- weigh the private damages as was the case in the Edina Green Subdivision dir- ectly southerly of Interlachen Hills Third Addition, Prestige 2nd Addition, Walnut Ridge 3rd Addition,and other plats adjacent to Nine Mile Creek. GH:nr 2 -28 -77 2. Subdivision Wallace Kenneth. Generally located east of Lincoln 5 -77 -2 1 Drive and west of Malibu Drive extended. R -4 Multiple 2 �/1 7 Rezoning Z -77 -4 Residential DisL.ri.ct to R -4 and R -2 Multiple Residence Districts and R -1 Single Family Residence District. Mr. Luce recalled this matter was continued from the February 2, 1977, Plan- ning Commission meeting because requisite signs indicating the property is proposed to be subdivided and rezoned were not erected. Mr. Luce stated the proponent is requesting a subdivision and rezonings to allow development of 13 single family homes on a road which would originate from the Hanson property to the east and cul- de- sac.on the northern portion•of the subject site. In addition, 12 double bungalow lots are proposed to be platted along Lincoln Drive; which would be extended south and cul -de -sac near the center of this parcel. Nine single family and 6 double bungalow lots are also proposed along Malibu Drive, which would be extended north into the extreme southern part of the subject site. Two R -4 lots are planned south of the existing Interlachen Hills apartments, and two outlots would be created between the proposed low density residential development and County Road 18. Mr. Luce reviewed the existing R -1, R -2, and R -4 zoning accomplished in 1965, and identified those areas proposed to be rezoned from R -1 and R -4 to R -2 and from R -2 to R -1 and R -4. Mr. Luce recalled the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District has a policy which allows a maximum of 20 percent of the flood plain on any parcel of property to be filled. He noted a permit to allow filling will be required for the development of several double bungalow lots along the west side of Malibu Drive (extended) and for the construction of a portion of Lincoln Drive. Proposed Lot 42 could, however, be filled at a later date and the site would still not exceed the Watershed District's 20 percent fill policy. Mr. Luce summarized the requested rezonings and subdivision would result in 22 single family lots averaging 14,500 square feet, 18 double bungalow lots averaging over 17,000 square feet per lot, two R -4 lots, and two outlots. He stated the proposed land use is consistent with the Western Edina Plan and compatible with the surrounding area,and would result in a down - zoning of the property. Mr. Luce stated that most of Outlot B is presently zoned R -4 and the developer desires to retain ownership of that outlot: It *is not a developable piece of property in that it could not be filled within the limitations of the Watershed District and the City's Flood Plain Ordinance. He recommended that any flood plain encroach- ment on the total site be limited to the 20 percent maximum permitted for the follow- ing reasons: 1. Numerous property owners as well as the City of Edina have constructed improvements in reliance on the 20 percent encroachment: rule and the protection it provides by preventing the creation of public harm caused by extensive flood plain filling. 2. The City participates in the Federal Flood Insurance Program, and, in order to maintain its eligibility, the City must properly enforce its Flood Plain Ordinance so the extent of flooding and potential damage can be adequately pre- dicted and limited. 7— 3 -2 -77 Planning Commission Minutest page 3 3. To insure the maintenance and preservation of needed and desirable natural water storage areas and waLei. courses, and to minimize the possibility of run -off and flooding and the pollution and losses which may result. Mr. Luce indicated the planning and environmental stuff have met extensively over the past few months with the proponent regarding the development of this land. He recommended approval of the flood plain permit, requested rezonings and the subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. That lots 1 through 13 be excepted from the final plat until access can be provided from the east. The City should, however, recognize that portion of the preliminary plat as the future platting proposal for that area. 2. That when the final platting of lots 1 through 13 is accomplished, a 20 -foot easement must be dedicated between lots 7 and 8 for utility purposes. 3. Lots 3 through 9 must have access to the future northeasterly road and cul- de -sac from the Hanson Property rather than to Lincoln Drive. 4. That the developer be required to dedicate Outlots A and B for park and open space purposes pursuant to the Subdivision Dedication Roport. This dedication is deemed to be a reasonable amount considering the flood plain elevation, the amount of fill needed, and the need to protect the flood plain areas to the maximum possible degree, as well as the other reasons stated in the addendum to the staff report. 5. That in exchange for the dedication of Outl.ot B, the owner be granted development rights of up to 350 units :,hick could be transferred to other multiple residential districts on this site. 6. That a grading permit from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and a flood plain permit from the Cityof Edina must be obtained before any work is done in the flood plain. Mr. Rick Davies, representing the Malibu Heights /Parkwood Knolls Association and Vice President of the Edina Coalition, appeared "not necessarily in objection to the request" but to express the following concerns: 1. Although this proposal may represent the best possible use of this marginal land, the commission should be aware that a number of homes in the Malibu area have serious basement water problems. 2.. The'traffic question has been another problem in this area, and the residents want to know what the Hansons' plans are, and if and how they intend to provide access to the Kenneth property. 3. "".ost importantly, because future residents will undoubtedly be very un- happy with noticeable noise problem from the County Road 18, homes should be kept as far a-xay from the highway as possible. Mr. Luce recalled the City Council mandate that Malibu and Lincoln Drives not connect in the Kenneth property. Mr. Kremer stated that in his opinion i,incoln Drive and Malibu Drive should connect on this property, and the residents of the Malibu Heights /Parkwood Knolls area should reconsider their recommendation to the Council that the roads not connect. Mr. Davies agreed to contact the affected residents to see if their attitudes have changed in light of Mr. Kenneth's proposal. 6 3 -2 -77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 4 Mr. Robert Roffman, attorney representing the proponent, stated they are gen- erally in concurrence with the staff's recoimmiendationf: and conditions with the ex- ception of 11;4 (requiring the dedication of Outlots A and B), #5 (transfer of development rights), and #1 (excepting lots 1 through 13 from the final plat). In reply to Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Luce stated the principle reasons for the fourth con- dition are stated in the'hddcndum to Edina Planning Commission Staff Report of March 2, 1977." Mr. Hoffman stated that "in advising the proponent as to the legal authority of the City to make the request for Outlot B as well as Outlot A, we cannot find any legal authority in the statutes or in the City ordinances which would allow the City to require 59 percent of the property to be requested under a park dedication theory." He indicated he had therefore advised the proponent of the following: 1. He questioned whether the City has the authority to request the dedication of Outlot B at this time because only plat approval is requested and the plat in and of itself does not impact Nine Mile Creek. No building permits, use permits, or physical obstructions are presently being requested, and Edina ordinances and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Overall Plan refer to use, obstructions, etc., and not to a plat itself when it considers flood plain encroachments. 2. - Thy Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Overall Plan indicates flood water storage can be provided naturally or storage areas can be constructed. When there are constructed facilities,. they are typically paid for from general public funds. In this instance, one private owner is being requested to pay for the storm water storage. 3. "At one point in the discussion of this particular plat, there was at least a suggestion from staff that it was acceptable to have a plat with Outlot B in it without its dedication." That suggestion and that type of discussion led the de- veloper to proceed with the plat including Outlot B and not dedicating it at this time. 4. The plat completely complies :vith the City's subdivision regulations. 5. The City of Edina and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed Dictri.ct have ample authority and opportunity over any actual development that would occur in the future on any of this property through flood plain permits, earth moving permits, building permits, etc. To impose conditions on a plat at this time seems to be prcmat:ure be- cause there is no evidence to indicate that.the plat in and of itself will have any•. adverse impact on the flood plain. 6. The property was zoned R -4 in 1965, which was three years after the Nine Mile' Creek. Watershed District Cverall Plan was established. Since that date, the owner has either paid assessments and taxes or they have accrued against the property. "There is a thin line between a regulatory measure and a taking measure, but this particular request has some elements of a tatting and some elements of a regulatory measure." 7. The proponent should consider that when he is requested to dedicate Outlot B, a dedication can take place in many forms (fee title, easement, etc.). 8. It is unrealistic that a transfer of density from Outlot B to lots 41 and 42 could occur, so the offer of a transfer of density is a mute issue and does not assist the developer in any way in the request for a dedication. 7— 3 -2 -77 Planning Commission Minutes, page 5 Mr. Hoffman s;:mmarized that it appears some of the staff's conditions, parti- cularly #4, may exceed the City's authority. Iie indicated the developer therefore requests that the Planning Commission accept the staff's recommendation without #4, and that some flexibility be allowed in meeting condition #l. He noted, however, that if those changes are not acceptable to the Commission, the developer would request that approval be granted as recommended by the staff to expedite the zoning and subdvision process. Mr. Luce responded that hearings were held in the early 1960's and zoning was given knowing that the Watershed District had regulations limiting the development of that property. He stated the staff is attempting not to mislead the owner into thinking that Outlot B could be developed because in the staff's opnion, there is no possibility that it could. In addition, state statutes and City regulations allow the City to request dedications only at the time of subdivision, not use. Regarding Mr. Hoffman's comment that the developer is being asked to pay for the storage of water in this area, Mr. Luce stated that this area stores water now, and it is reasonable to expect that this area should continue tostore water. The owner is not being asked to construct a storage facility; he is being asked to maintain 80 percent of the natural storage facility that exists. Further discussion followed regarding the proposed road patterns. Mr. Luce stated the Malibu Heights people could meet during the next month and, if their attitude has. changed, that conclusion could be presented to the City Council. Mr. Hoffman indicated that a modification connecting Malibu Drive and Lincoln Drive "would not be out of line with Mr. Kenneth's thinking." After further discussion, Mr. G. Johnson asked Mr. Hoffman if his client had any objection to eliminating the staff's recommendation regarding transferring development rights. Mr. Hoffman indicated his client had no use for the development rights. Mr. C. Johnson then moved the requested rezonings and subdivision be approved with the following con- ditions: 1. Lots 1 through 13 should be excepted from the final plat until access can be provided from the east. 2. That when the final platting of lots 1 through 13 is accomplished,. a 20- foot easement must be dedicated between lots 7 and 8 for utility purposes. 3. That lots 3 through 9 must have access to the future northeasterly road and cul -de -sac from the Hanson property rather than to Lincoln Drive. .4. That the developer be required to dedicate Outlot A and Outlot B pursuant to the Subdivision Dedication Report. 5. That a grading permit from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and a flood plain permit from the City of Edina be obtained before any work is done in the flood plain. 6. That the Lincoln Drive /Malibu Drive road plan be reviewed to determine whether- that plan is the optimal road plan for the area or whether Lincoln Drive should be a continuous road. Mr. Kremer seconded the motion. At the staff's request, Mr. G. Johnson amended his motion to include approval of a flood plain permit for Lincoln Drive and the R -2 area at the south end of. the site.in addition to approval of the rezonings and subdivision. Mr. Kremer seconded the amended motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. MEMORANDUM T0: Members of Edina City Council Warren C. Hyde, City Manager FROM: Thomas S. Erickson Re: Wallace B. Kenneth Rezoning and Platting In the event Mr. Kenneth does not agree to convey Outlots A and B to the City of Edina as recommended by the City Planner, the Planning, and Environmental Quality Commission, then it is recommended that the City Council obtain further information on at least the attached aspects of the proposal from the City Staff or the developer. Time attached ques- tions are not in any order of preference or importance. You may wish to have the attached questions asked by one, or less than all, of the Council members. Once the questions have been asked, con- tinue the hearing until a specified future date to obtain all desired information. By Minnesota Statutes, failure of the Council to "act on the application" within 60 days of the first hearing is deemed approval of the plat. Therefore, the information will have to be obtained and the Council's decision made within that 60 -day period. Once all information has been obtained, Council should proceed pursuant to paragraphs 13 through 16 of the "City Council Procedure for Hearing and Deciding Land Use Questions." I . A. 1. What does the owner propose to do with Outlot B, and when? 2. Does that proposed use fit within the Western Edina Plan? 3. Why should the Council approve the plat without requiring Outlot B to be dedicated? Why does the owner disagree with the recommendation of the City Staff, the Planning Commission, and the Environmental Quality Commission? 4. What action does the owner desire the Council to take, and why? 5. What is the position of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District relative to the recommendation of the City's Planning Commission? 6. What is the position of the Watershed District relative to the owner's proposed future use and development of Outlot B? 7. Has the owner ever applied to the Watershed District for a permit to fill all or part of Outlot B? When? If so, what is the status or was the result of that application? If not, what would the Watershed District's position be on such an application? 8. If Outlot B is developed as proposed, what adverse effect, if any, would it have on floods, flood damage, the flood plain, the flood elevations, the creek, and protection of surface and groundwater supplies? 9. What is the recommendation of the Park Board as to Outlot B? Is it identified as open space in the January 20, 1975, report of the City's Open Space Committee? What does that report say about how this area -is to be ac- quired? 10. When did Kenneth acquire the property? 11. Is•the Kenneth property a natural marsh or low area? What are the soil conditions? Was it in its present condition when acquired by Kenneth? 12. Has Edina, any private parties, or any other governmental bodies done any work, or expended any moneys, in reliance on the flood plain elevations intended to be maintained by our Flood Plain Ordinance or the regulations of the Watershed District? If so, what has been done, and where? Would development of Outlot B have an adverse effect on that reliance? 13. Has Outlot B ever been flooded? When? How often? To what depth or elevation? 14. If Outlot B is developed, what effect will it have on the City's Federal Flood Insurance eligibility? 15. In what manner will storm water drainage from the proposed development be handled? If dedicated to the City, to what extent will Outlot B be utilized for storm drainage from the proposed development? If Outlot B is..d_eveloped, in what manner will storm water drainage be handled? Storefront /Youth Action Inc. Treasurer's Report May 1, .1977 Balance Forward $6,583.89 Cash Receipts: Data_100 1 200.00 Ci=ty of Richfield 1,250.00 City of Bloomington 833.00 Community Ed.- Edina 1,167.00 CETA - Edina 833.00 Private Donations .199.60. 5.4821.60 $12 , 066.49 Disbursements: Salaries 2,911.40 Mileage 177.86 Postage 13.00 Telephone 138.70 -.... Custodial 24.00 -- Training 35.00 Insurance 289.00 ' Consulting Fees 25,.00 Federal Withholding 451.60 State Withholding 166.00 Unemployment 304..50. Youth Diversions Match 1,857.15 Note & Interest 525.00 Miscelaneous 25.30 6,943.51 STOREFRONT /YOUTH ACTION BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING AGENDA MAY 129 1977 1. Call To Order 2. Approval of Minutes of March 10, 1977 3. Director's Report 4. Youth Worker Report 5. Executive Committee Report 6. Fund Raising Committee Report 7. January thru March Statistical Report 8. January thru March Financial Report 9. Discussion of Fees for Family Counseling 10. Other 11. Adjournment STOREFRONT /YOUTH ACTION MONTHLY REPORT APRIL 1977 I. ACTIVITIES WITH POLICE, COURT SERVICES, AND SCHOOLS A. Bloomington 1. Mr. Powell and Mr. Lepinski met with five juvenile officers from the Bloomington Police Department. The meeting was to discuss the relationship between the officers and the Storefront, evaluate the current - referral and feedback mechanism, and discuss any new programs on ideas which might be valuable.. The meeting was very positive. The current referral mechanism is working well. There was support from the police for a property offenders program but they suggested staying away from restitution. B. Edina 1. Mr. Harr and Mr. Smith met with Ms. Judy Hanson, juven- ile officer, to discuss the need for temporary shelter homes in Edina. Ms. Hanson indicated an uncertainty as to the need for such a program by the police. Further progress on the idea was postponed until more informa- tion can be gathered. 2. Mr. Lepinski and Ms.-Wernick met with the administra- tive cabinet at Edina East. The meeting was to clarify the formal referral process to programs offered by Youth Action within the school. Mr. Rod Schmidt will draft a policy for the schools and discuss it with Ms. Wernick. C. Richfield 1. Mr. Wolff met with Ms. Rose Linden, Richfield Police Department to discuss three cases referred by Ms. Linden. D. Other 1. No significant meetings in April. _ II. COMMUNITY EDUCATION A. Bloomington 1. Ms. Stewart spoke to the Bloomington Youth Commission. She spoke on therapeutic strategies in working with youth. B. Edina 1. Ms. Wernick, Mr..Harr and Mr. Smith spoke to 80 fifth -. 2 - graders at Cornelia Elementary School. The presentation was part of a series on Youth and the Law and - covered self concept, loneliness and family issues.as reasons for youth breaking the law. 2. Ms. Wernick and Mr. Smith spoke to two classes of 50 students, each at Cahill Elementary School on "Youth and the Law." 3. Ms. Wernick participated in a program called "For Women Only." The program is a series on chemical issues particular to women. The series is jointly sponsored by Project Charlie and the Southdale YMCA. Ten women attended. 4. Ms. Wernick was involved in a presentation to thiry parents of ninth graders at Temple Israel. Mr. Don Weida and Mr. Jeff Sileskey from Metro Drug Awareness gave a presentation on attitudes, facts and myths around chemical issues. 5. Ms. Wernick met with residents of the Morningside Community as part of a presentation on prevention of chemical dependency. Ms. Karen Stolberg from Metro Drug Awareness was present to discuss prevention strategies for families. 6. Mr. Harr met with three students from West Upper Divi- sion to provide information on adolescent suicide for a class project the students were doing. 7. Mr. Harr gave a talk on loss and grievance to 25 first graders at Cornelia Elementary School. '8. Mr. Smith spoke to a child development class at West Upper Division on incest and child abuse. C. Richfield 1. Mr. Wolff spoke for two days to 50 seventh graders at West Junior High School. His talks were on chemical dependency. The response from the students was very good. Five out of twenty -five students in the first class were concerned about a parent's alcoholism. 2. Mr. Wolff spoke on chemical issues to the tenth grade health classes at Richfield Senior High School. Ninety students were present in the classes. D. Other 1. Ms. Stewart participated on a panel at a mini - course for foster parents at the University of Minnesota. The class was on chemical issues. Ms. Stewart spoke on special concerns of youth and intervention. Fifteen foster parents.were present. - 3 - 2. Mr. Wilmes spoke on "Alcohol and Drug Abuse Among Adoles- cents" to the American Legion and the Legion Auxiliary in Eden Prairie. Twenty persons attended the talk. III. MAJOR COMMUNITY MEETINGS 1. Mr. Lepinski met with the family service unit of the Hennepin County Welfare Department which serves the South Hennepin Area. The meeting was to discuss new programs at Storefront /Youth Action and to discuss issues in - delivering effective service to youth and families in the South Hennepin Area. 2. Mr. Powell and Mr. Wilmes visited Northwestern Treatment Center to gain information on that program and to share information about the Storefront. They met with Mr. Dan Kelly. 3. Mr. Powell visited Mineral Springs Treatment Center in Cannon Falls, Minnesota. Mr. Powell had a client at Mineral Springs and was interested in learning more about the program. 4. Ms. Weber met with counselors from East Junior High School, The Academy of the Holy Angels, staff from the Hennepin County libary and Ms. Memmel, director of the Richfield Youth Employment Service, to discuss chemical dependency education for parents in Richfield. Ms. Weber will contact Ms. Vicki Stewart from the South Hennepin Human Services Council who has helped develop Project Charlie, a chemical dependency education program in Edina. 5. Mr. Wolff met with Mr. Todd Humphries and Ms. Joan Hawley from the Johnson Institute to discuss their con- sultation and training contract with the Richfield School District. The meeting was to ensure coordination of the Johnson Institute's training and the work done with the schools by the Storefront. 6. Mr. Harr and Mr. Smith attended the regular meeting of the Pupil Personnel Coordinating Team at West Lower Division. IV.. CONSULTATION, RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, NEW PROGRAMS /ACTIVITIES 1. Mr. Lepinski met with Mr. Wayne Burggrraaff, Richfield City Manager, Mr. Terry Creegan, Director of The South Communities Youth Service Bureau in Cottage Grove, and Mr. Carl Meissner, City Manager in Cottage Grove. Mr. Creegan and Mr. Meissner are planning for the expira- tion of LEAA funds for,the youth service bureau and are interested in how other communities provide the service. Mr. Burggrraaff and Mr. Lepinski explained the develop- ment and growth of the Storefront and current relation- ship between the city and the Storefront. 2. Ms. Judy Gordon, co- director of CREATE met with the staff at Storefront /Youth Action to help evaluate the - 4 - Chemical Orientation Program. Ms. Gordon participated in the April orientation and had feedback for the staff which was very helpful. V. LONG RANGE PLANNING, FUNDING, AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS 1. Mr. Lepinski, Mr. Beitler, executive director of the HAYDP, and the other unit supervisors began work on the proposal for a contract between the Youth Diversion Program and Hennepin County Court Services for 1978. The proposal needs to be submitted to Court Services by the middle of May. 2. Ms. Wernick attended a meeting of the Edina board of educa- tion. The community education department's budget which included $12,000.00 for Youth Action was approved at that meeting. VI. TRAINING RECEIVED 1. Ms. Weber attended a.half day workshop on self worth which was offered by the Johnson Institute. VII. STAFF VACANCIES 1. Mr.. Dave Wilmes gave notice of his resignation in April. Mr. Wilmes will resign effective May 9, 1977• 2. Ms. Terez Stewart gave notice of her resignation in April. Ms. Stewart will resign effective June 15, 1977. VIII. CHEMICAL ORIENTATION PROGRAM 1. A total of 7 "units "; 26 persons participated in the March program. Residential span is as follows: Bloomington (2 units) 27% Richfield (2 units) 38% Edina 3 units) 35% The following results are indicated from program involvement: 2 Residential Treatment referral 2 Action pending 5 Individual /family therapy (case active:open) 2 Drop -out 1 Out- patient treatment referral VIV. COUNSELOR ACTIVITY NAME INTAKES TERMINATIONS FOLLOW UPS Wolff 17 11 13 D. Powell 7 11 5 Stewart 1 Wilmes 4 19 1 Weber 12 Wernick 3 J. Powell 6 1 Total 49 41 21 • STATISTICAL REPORT January thru March 1977 Attached is a statistical report by community for Storefront/ Youth Action for the first quarter of 1977. I. Intake AEI: There is no significant change in the ages of the majority of clients. The higher percentage of younger clients in Edina reflects a response to requests from elementary schools to offer groups.- The eight - unknowns in Richfield are from a women's group begun in January. Sex: The nearly even split among males and females indicates we are reaching young women who are often under served. Source of Referral: Criminal justice system referrals (court court services, and police) are down significantly. Local police departments and court services indicate this is due to a decline in their juvenile apprehensions during this period. Increased school referrals reflect the beginning of several groups at schools as well as some by- passing of police by referring directly to Storefront/ Youth Action. Reason for Referral: Decrease in first four categories is a result of decline in criminal justice system referrals. Drug problems continue to be the reason many clients are referred. Previous Criminal Justice System Involvement: Down from 49% for the last six months of 1976. This decline may indi- cate earlier intervention which is one goal of agency. It also may indicate we are working with fewer "high risk youth" who have been, and continue to be, a target population. II. Termination and Follow -Up Less than 10% of our clients have further criminal justice involvement either while a client or within three months of termination. III. Case Histories Attached are three case histories which are representative of the clients seen and the services provided. i. Bloom– Eden Jan/Feb/Mar 1977 1,' .1 Richf iel�'. ington Edina Prairie Other ,0N, INU, 7, R 0 CAC .9 - -- ,,---- .,...i .� . 75 65 47 2 �i --- �- - -!� - ---- ---- -� _ - --- -- -- _---. ': ----- -- — - - - __....__ •- 190 \T 10 or blelol.,, 2 3% 6 13% 8 4% 11 12 5% 1' T, QVR —4 6 -7. 4 19 %6 17 126% 11 1 i� 42 2Z1 23% 0 87 % 47%1-, 32 490 09/6 1 5096 AGE 15 6 35 2 16% 2�% !s 8 18% _15 179/6 -35 I !j 21 or above. 2 2% unkncwn 8 11 100% 5% -3 J! 31 !41% 44 68 Yo L. 100 YO S = C, 0 47% Feirale 44 22 47% 2 10 59Yo 21 %o SOURCE_ OF REFEPJIAL Court I 1 1 2% jl 1 29/6 2 1% Court Services 29/6 2 4Y6 1 3 2% Police/Sheriff 8 1 11yo 11 1 17Y6 2 4% i 21 11% School 21 1 28%0 34 1 52-//o 1127 57% 11 1 50L6 83 44/0, Other Agency 11 1% 3 1 59/6 1! 1 2% 5 3% Project Staff Parents/Family 12 16Y6 11 10 15% 4 26 14% Friend 18 ?4; 6 X 1 5C-°/c 1 23 Self 15 20vo 3 5So 5 6'/=- 21 _.11° Other 2 J! 6 4% EIoom- ` [ Eden I�77 ����'�E J h/Wsr �|8icbf `eId!'1ngton � Edina �I`rairio � Other '' i� ____-_ TOTAL Te 38 20% 09, 5LO Incorrigible 1 2% .5%_ 1977 ;.0 -T:- I Rich ficici{ + L >1 oom- i inftcn Eden Edina Prairie_.. • _ � _Other ::�Ji'�IJ:�I� 75 1 t'j5 I 4 7 i - r - - - - --- - -- 2 1 190 : 1-olico Co i� Previous �ac�: �' • --�___ 1o. �� �� __ -' ,, cL c�.; o. - -�' =- °' �° i NO ; . ;� ! Teo. /J �' I ear�i :,, d—d a' ,,- cis i , i Involvema:t Released 1' j ! 26 i 35/ 21 32% 7 , 15/ (categories ! i ! 54 -28% eA it sive j Polio: Contact: ;; ! e I . Booked ;; 3 s o 4 %! , 6 9/ 4 9/ i t I I 13 i 7% _ .......... - - -- ---� _---; - I Ji•TBER Or CASES T-7 IPC, fi..tiT I. 1 :-1L- ; 38 , 36 18 ! 92 PO 11 ce Contact: Cl _ _ / _ � _ � To— f ----•� -\. � . CJS Reprimanded and a Involve- Rel cased `' 7 9/ , 3 8% 5 3 28% ` �5 = 8% ment Project Client Police Contact: 4 Booked �' E: j 1% 6% 6 ; .5/ * . U13 ER OF FOLLJ:; —TOO 33 i 42 86 11 — Police Ccn�act: - /, �r,T., — - -- c/ i`! . c' _,,_.__. my c i �Tn --. a; c CJs aeprimai':ded •a ;d ! i Involve- i Released 8 12; 8 Via;; Since Terminat:4 Police Con tae;:: (categoric Booked +, 1 1% n,aolusivo) 4'5% CASE HISTORY April 1977 Case 1 Donna, age 17, and her mother had been seeing a counselor at Side By Side. The counselor then referred Donna and her mother to the Storefront for chemical dependency counseling. I met with Donna and the mother and it seemed as though a lot of issues concerning Donna revolved around her drinking. Some of these issues were: Donna's grades-dropped as.her drinking increased. Mother was concerned because Donna frequently stayed out all night and had been escorted home by the police numerous times as a result of being drunk. Donna reported that she changed friends frequently and had no one she considered a real friend. Donna also reported not being,as happy as she would like to have been. I encouraged Donna and her mother to become involved in the Chemical Orientation Program and said that I would like to see Donna occasionally for counseling. As a result of the Chemical Orientation Program and coming in for - weekly counseling sessions, - -Donna and her mother came to the belief that Donna was certainly having, problems with her drinking but felt that no further counseling or treatment was needed as Donna said she had quit drinking and that she was happy with the changes she had made. Three weeks later Donna got in contact with me and said she was afraid and felt she needed treatment. She admitted that she had never really quit drinking but had tried to cut down and the drinking got worse. She said she was ready to do something. I suggested St. Mary's Hospital. I put her on a five -week waiting list for the Adolescent Chemical Depen- dency Treatment Unit. Donna spent the next five weeks nearly hibernating at home. This was the only way she knew how to control her drinking. At present, Donna is now receiving treatment at St. Mary's Hospital. She seems to be doing well and is scheduled for release by the end of April. Counselor - Dave Wilmes CASE HISTORY April 1977 Case 2 John, age 12, was referred to Youth Action, along with his parents, by the principal of the elementary school that John attends. The presenting problem was that John was falling behind the other 6th graders at a -rapid pace and was beginning to surface as a behavior problem. Temper tantrums, fist fights, and various other sorts of un- acceptable behavior was becoming more and more common behavior for John at school. The principal suggested there was a possibility of some sort of "home problem ". Gene Kemp and Scott Harr met with the entire family (mom, dad, sister, and John) for the initial interview. It was during this session that both John's history and'the family's history were taken. It was discovered that the entire family had revolved around John and his "bad behavior" since John had been in kindergarten. The parents and John's 5th grade sister made it clear that John was the source of the family unrest, and if we could "help" him, the other family problems would take care of themselves. John definitely showed signs of guilt and had a very low self image as a result of being blamed for a vsriety'of problems that the family was experi- encing. We made a contract with the family that stated the entire family would meet with us weekly for family counseling. John was also to meet with Scott Harr on an individual basis, along with participating in the family sessions. The focus of both the family counseling and John's individual counseling was to have all family members accept their own responsibility and to take care of them- selves, rather than focus all their energy on John and his problems. During this process Scott Harr met three times with John's school principal and teachers. Information was also obtained from the Edina school psychologist who administered a battery of psycho- logical tests to John in both kindergarten and third grade. The information obtained from these consultations added information used in the counseling for John and his family. The counseling included such activities as increasing communi- cation skills for all family members; writing of responsibility contracts (household chores and school responsibilities, etc.) and identification of feelings within the family members and how they affected one another in all aspects of each person's life. The decision to terminate the counseling with this family and John was a decision reached by family members and the counselors after a total of 10 family sessions and 10 individual sessions with John. The family had increased their ability to accept personal responsibility and to communicate in a more positive way with one another and peers. A number of family and personal goals were also established for each family member to continue working on.- The family made phone contact with us occasionally when a question would arise. As time continued, so did the positive changes the family had desired. Counselor - Scott Harr April 1977 Case 3 Karrie was referred to us by a counselor at the junior high school she attends who was concerned about her performance in school (truancy, using abusive language, etc.) I met with her and after three sessions got to know her fairly well. She talked -quite openly about her chemical usage but at that time she did not put the chemical usage and her behavior together. I met with the parents to discuss my observations with them, at their request. Karrie was suspended from school and with the help of .the school counselor and her parents Karrie was put into Lutheran Deaconess Hospital (Adolescent Chemical Depende.n.cy Unit) Detox. Mom and Karrie told me that she had been using for about three and a half years. Karrie went from Lutheran Deaconess Hospital into St. Mary's Adolescent Chemical Dependency Treatment. When Karrie started marital problems started Hennepin Family and Chip some emotional problems. doing well in school and going well with them and Counselor - Dan Powell working on her problems, Mom and Dad's to surface. I referred them to South 3ren's Services to get help resolving At the time of follow up, Karrie was Mom and Dad report that things are Karrie. I I Ah UII league of minnesota cities TO Members of the Legislative Contact Committee All Metro Area Cities All Outstate Cities Over 2,500 All City Managers and Administrators SUBJECT: Amendments to House., Omnibus Tax Bill (H.F. 1475) The purpose of this memorandum is to ask you to contact your State Representative and request him to support corrective action concerning two amendments which were added to this bill in the House Tax Committee. The enclosed letter to all members of the House of Representatives explains the two amendments and the effect they will have on cities. H.F. 1475 passed out of the House Tax Committee on Tuesday evening, May 3, and it will probably be debated on the House floor on either Friday or Monday. Therefore, it is urgent that the contact with your legislator be made.in person, or by telephone or telegraph. It is not clear at this point that either of these matters will be considered "caucus issues." Therefore, it is important that as many members of the House be contacted as possible. Sincerely, Dean A. Lund Executive Director League of Minnesota Cities DAL/VP /es Sincerely, Vern Peterson Executive Director Association of Metropolitan Municipalities 300 hanover building, 480 cedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 [61 21 222 -2861 [LHI G league of minnesota cities May 4, 1977 To: All Members of the House of Representatives The purpose of this letter is to call your attention to two specific amendments which were made to the omnibus tax bill (H.F. 1475) which will adversely affect cities and to request your assistance in correcting them. The first amendment, offered by Representative Henry Savelkoul, Albert Lea, deleted the new language in Article IV, Section 3, which would have increased the levy limit each year by 6 percent or the percentage increase in a U. S. Government index of state and local government costs, whichever was greater. The effect of the Savelkoul amendment is to limit such increases to 6 percent per year which is a substantially smaller increase than the legislature has provided for state departments and for public schools. Furthermore, since most indicies of inflation, and specifically those which measure governmental costs, are increasing between 6 and 8 percent per year, this means that the revenues available to many cities will not be sufficient to maintain present services. H.F. 1475 also folds existing special levies into the levy limit base and eliminates most of the special levies from the present law including those for: (1) payment of court ,judgments and stipulations; (2) costs of complying with lawful orders by the state or the United States; (3) costs of complying with laws enacted in 1975 or subsequently; (4) pension costs such as those imposed by the 1969 Guidelines Act and the phase -out of local pension plans; (5) local matching funds for federal and state grants; and (6) the cost of preventing, preparing for, or repairing the effects of natural disasters. Taken together, the Savelkoul amendment and the elimination of the special levies will effectively prevent any city which is at or near its levy limit from either responding to situations such as those contemplated by the present special levies or continuing present levels of service. If this financial crisis is to be avoided, either the special levies must be retained in the law or the index of state and local government costs will have to be reinstated in H.F. 1475. The second amendment, offered by Representative James Casserly (Minneapolis), would deny any additional state aids to any city or township in the Twin Cities metropolitan area which has a three -year average mill rate, when multiplied by the aggregate sales ratio, of 10 mills or less. On the basis of the information available to us, we believe that this amendment to Article III, Section 4, will grossly discriminate against 49 cities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area during the next two years (list attached). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that a group of - cities -in a- particular - geographic- area has been singled out for -such discriminatory treatment in a statewide tax measure. We wish to make it very clear that we have no basic quarrel with the present county - municipal aid formula as amended in the bill. As a matter of fact, the League and 300 hanover building, 60 cedar street, sarn °tver� g, p ul, minnesota 55101 C6121 222 -2661 the Association supported the changes which were made in the county - municipal aid formula in both 1971 and 1975. However, the Casserly amendment prevents this distribution formula from operating normally for a group of cities with low municipal mill rates in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, and in so doing creates an ominous precedent for highly discriminatory legislation. While most of us in municipal government are accustomed to a certain�amount.:of rough and tumble politics, these two amendments trouble us deeply. What public purpose is served by creating another cause of strife and recrimination between the central cities and the suburbs? What public policy objective will.be achieved by setting the Twin Cities metropolitan area against the remainder of the state and vice versa? How will the public be better served by financially starving our. cities and severely curtailing their ability to provide services and respond to.the :,needs of their residents? Quite frankly, we don't know the answers to these questions. It is clear, however, that these two amendments are completely inconsistent with the strong tradition of intergovernmental cooperation which forms the foundation for many of our governmental.achievements here in Minnesota. Therefore:;:-we - strongly urge you to support the appropriate corrective action when H.F. 1475 is considered on the House floor. Sincerely, Al G. Loehr, President League of Minnesota, .�Cities and Mayor of St. Cloud AGL /JN /es Sincerely, Josephine Nunn, President Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and Mayor of Champlin Anoka County Andover Ramsey East Bethel .Dakota County Coates - -New Trier Randolph Vermillion Li lydale..'. . Mendota Heights Miesville Sunfish Lake Eagan Hennepin County Edina St. Bonifacius Wayzata Medicine Lake Woodland Plymouth Independence Greenfield Corcoran Dayton Hanover Osseo Scott Savage Prior Lake CITIES THAT PROBABLY WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE CASSERLY AMENDMENT* �r Ramsey County Shoreview Roseville _Vadnais Heights Falcon Heights Lauderdale Arden Hills North Oaks Gem Lake Spring Lake Park St— Anthony,. Little Canada Washington County Afton Birchwood Hugo Lake Elmo Lakeland Shores Marine on St. Croix Oak Park Heights St. Marys Point Lakeland St. Croix Beach Pine Springs Landfall *Using readily available information concerning city mill rates in 1975, 1976, and 1977 and the probable assessment ratios in 1976, we believe the cities listed above will be adversely affected. However, since H.F. 1475 incorporates a number of changes which will affect city mill rates, it is not possible at this point to make completely accurate projections. MEMO TO: Mr. Warren Hyde, City Manager Mayor James Van Valkenburg City Council Members FROM: Mr. Ken Rosland, Park and Recreation Department Director DATE: June 3, 1977 SUBJECT: Donation of Property Mr. John J. McCauley of 6416 McCauley Circle, has written a letter to the City stating he would like to donate some land located in the City. The general description of this land is McCauley Heights 4th Addition, Parcel 1727, Plat 73972, District 24 auditors subdivision #196. It is however a separate parcel totally located in Arrowhead Lake. The estimated market value in 1976 was $2,800.00 but the Assessor has reappraised it and it is now $3,300.00. The Park Board has reviewed this and has agreed to accept the land. I believe the McCauleys will let the land go tax forfeited, but would prefer not to do it that way as a personal matter. I believe the-City would eventually end up with the property, however it is handled. It might be easier and less paperwork for all concerned if we accept the land. K.R. pb A.4 IV -- 6 -1 -77 Planning Commission Minutes III.. New BusinEss: 1. Presentation by Metro Council of Metropolitan Systems Statement for .City of Edina. Mr. G. Hughes explained that about a month ago the City received from the Metropolitan Counuil_a preliminary - systems statement.which is the.first step in the Metropolitan Land Planning Act mandated in 1976. He said there were various steps involved in the planning process as were included in the staff report. Mr. G. Hughes further.said staff has been asked by the Metro - poiitan.Council to review and forward any disagreements with the draft systems statement and the Metropolitan Council will review them and prepare a final Metropolitan Systems Statement which will be forwarded to the City within approximately two months. He said if there were still disagreements with the final statement, a reconciliation procedure is available. Mr. G. Hughes noted.there were three parts contained in the.preliminary Systems Statement: 1. Population, employment, and housing projections. 2. Analysis of metropolitan facilities, i.e.. transportation, airports, waste management, and open space.. 3. Exclusions. Mr. G. Hughes clarified that there were no.exclusions for Edina. Mr. G. Hughes said, in regard to part 1 of the staff report entitled "Population, Employment and Housing Projections ", that shortly after the City received the draft Systems Statement, they also received a revised population forecast for Edina. This forecast, to some degree, reduced the final population projection in Edina from 55,000 to 50,,000 and, in terms of household units, a maximum of 20,400 units as compared to 22,150.as was.noted in the Systems Statement; employment was essentially unchanged. Mr.. G. Hughes said if the revised population, household and employment forecasts were formally adopted by the Metropolitan Council, they would be the basis for the compre- hencive plan submitted by the City. He said staff has no basis on which to disagree with the revised forecasts.• In,,regard to the metropolitan facilities, Mr.. Hughes noted under. highways that a half - diamond interchange was proposed for West 66th Street, and that plans submitted to the City by the Department of Transportation indicated that there will be no access on 66th Street. In regard to I -494, Mr. Hughes said staff believes that the.section dealing with "timing of future.improvements" of this area should consider the timing of the proposed access improvements at I -494 and France as access improvements in this area are extremely critical. In regard to transit, Mr. G. Hughes said intermodal transfer terminal in the area of 100 and 62 has been planned for..the year 1990..and felt that the plans should be further solidified. Mr. G. Hughes said some time ago the City submitted comments to the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission regarding regional trails in Edina. ^age 2 The original trail was proposed along Minnehaha Creek through Edina; however, there was inadequate public ownership along this creek for trail purposes. He recommended the Metropolitan Parks and Open. Space Commission to take the. lack of ownership into consideration when considering final plans. Mr. Terry :•;ills was present from the Metropolitan Council for any questions and said that in regard to transportation that the inclusion of a half - diamond interchange for 66th Street and Highway 100 was an error in the preliminary systems statement and agreed that access improvements for 494 and France were critical. Mr. Mills said in terms of transit and intermodal transfer terminal at 100 and 62, this was recommended by the MTC Commission. In regard to recreation open space, he said there was a public hear '_ng at the end of March and the original proposed regional trail along Minnehaha Creek will be dropped because of lack of public ownership. In response to Mr. Runyan, Mr. Mills said the Metropolitan Council is only concerned with making the various communities aware of regional concerns, necessary land planning, and where various regional facilities are located and said they are not concerned with planning the community themselves. Regarding housing, Mr. Mills said that there was an allocation plan which specified the percentage of low and moderate income housing which should be planned for each community. Mr. Mills said the final. systems statement must be transmitted to the Metropolitan Council by July 1, 1977. In response to Mrs. McDonald, Mr. Mills said almost fully developed communities are more important to land planning for the low and moderate income people because facilities are more easily accessible in those areas rather than the rural areas. Mr. Dunn, City Engineer, said the sewer plan won't be changed by this Statement because the plan was adopted by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 5 -6 years ago and was agreed to by Metropolitan Council. Mr. Runyan moved for acceptance of the.Systems Statement with the comments noted in the staff report. Mr. S. Hughes seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. DONALD W •AI;.I) r Mr J, r _ ' HE"" JULE RUSSELL W LINOOUIST 00 a YIP'IL M YMILL„ pr.Ir PT T.� ^'JF P06CRT J J•. -N53N M B MA SSCLO.-ST GEOPCE P FLANNCRI CURTIS L PCT ARTHUR C rEISSERG OUANE E JOiC °M JAMES 8 VC,SEY WILLIAM A r %-- C.J.S-M•AP•;EAUER THOMAS M BROWN CORNS LIUS 0 M.MONET THOMAS S EQ".A .N WILLIAM C BAECOCK MICMACL E SPESS RATMOMD A PEISTER JOHN J TAYLOR BCRNARD G HEINSEN rIt LIAN J -IMPEL DORSEY, MAROUART, WINDHORST, WEST 8, HALLADAY 2300 F I R S T NATIONAL BANK BUILDING FAITH L OMMAN 0AV10 A P. +nCIM P.,I. o •.. WEN MINNEAPOLIS, M I N N E 5 0 TA 55 4 02 PcatPT J 51 +[OMAN P! WITH [P.•, A Lr.1A Tn LAP P TrL Y C•°CT LC °CN a .N ;ii CM. r 5 1EEQ JC-N C Z...MA. JCHN P .,CAS EUSENE : SON MICMACL 11IC ""0 WLLIAM P SGTM TMCM.S R MAN'MEY RICMARO G SYANSON (612) 340 -2600 CABLE: DOROW TELEX: 29 -0605 TELECOPIER:(6121 340 -2866 1466 W —FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING ST. PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101 1612) 227 -6017 JONATHAN VILLAGE CENTER CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55316 (612) 446 -4012 115 THIRD STREET SOUTHWEST s ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55901 (607) 268 -3156 June 13, 1974 Honorable Members of the City Council Mr. Warren C• Hyde, City Manager City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Re: Sale to the Church of Our Lady of Grace of the former Oscar Roberts property. Dear Council Members and Mr. Hyde: JOHN 0 ,IT PHILIP IT BCCOER WILLIAM B PATH[ JAN STU_ R A SCMr.c ;•S�.uCR STEVEN A C- •NPLIN OAVIO N FPChIA THOMAS W TIN.MAM ,ION F TUT TLC ROBERT A MC'B C AG ENE PI ■ BAPiLE MICHAEL J PACMER PAUL SCMEEPER CURTIS L STING EIICMACL TPUCA40 WILLIAM J KEPPEL JAMES A FLACCR WILLIAM A JOIN HISTORIC C SO.EN WILLIAM P LUTHER DOUGLAS 0 MCFARLAND DAVID L BOEMNEN ALAN D GILLILAND LAWRENCE R OLIVER PRANK M VOIGT WILLIAM E MARTIN rot 1-- M ✓ ✓C C. JR SIEP..FN * 5..... RChEPI A gUPNS TONI . BEITC MIf MCL A L.FOND BPAO 10R0 L IIP,USOH RO �[P J 6 157N J NL[•• -T 665 JA, CC:A STANLE. REIN CMAPAS L P3TU.MIA VE °:ANC L CNC3PF OENhih Su..T TI 4CGP�[•hh BEC.[R R OB CRi rv9 PINS SAPPY D SLA;ER PETER MENGPI.SON NICRT MAT IPVING WE -SER STEP-C% GC SCHALR THOMAS CLAIMS OF COUNSEL DAVID E BRONSON LEAVITT R BAP.ER GEORGE C ANCERSON ROBERT L WANFOSSCN The aurch of Our Lady of Grace (the "Church ") has submitted another agreement, dated May 31, 1974, for the purchase of the former Oscar .,Roberts property now owned by the City of Edina. I have reviewed that agree- - . ment and have discussed the terms of the sale with Mr.. John Palmer, attorney for the Church. The Church and Edina are now in agreement as to the .terms of sale with respect to the following points: 1. Sale price of $22,500. 2. Total cash payment, $6,000. 3. The sum of $16,500 to be paid in two equal annual installments of $6,000 each, with a third payment -of $4,500. The exact dates of the respective payments have not been discussed, but this is a minor point. 4. The unpaid principal balance will be secured by a contract for deed and be guaranteed by Robert E. Short. 5. The unpaid principal balance Ydue under the contract will bear interest at the rate of 7 -1/2% per annum commencing when the City of Edina has removed the gravel and other debris presently on the property. 6. Edina may rezone the property sold to the same zoning as the adjacent property owned by the Church. e HORSEY. MAROUART. WINDHORST, WEST S HALLADAY Honorable Members of the City Council Mr. Warren C. Hyde, City Manager Page 2 June 13, 1974 7. Edina will give only a limited warranty deed to the property on payment of the contract. 8. The contract will call for acceleration of the debt upon any default, and will require the Church to keep the property free of liens while there is any unpaid principal due under the contract for deed. 9. Edina will receive an opinion from the counsel for the Church to the effect that the purchase has been duly approved by all necessary church bodies and that the documents have been duly executed and are binding upon the Church. . 10. The Church will pay all unpaid installments of special assess- ments commencing with those payable in 1974. I am advised that there are no special assessments. The Church and Edina have not yet agreed upon the following points: A. Edina desires to remove only the sand and gravel now on the property. I understand there is some additional debris, consisting of cement blocks or a pile of hardened cement, which Edina does not desire to remove. The Church does want Edina to remove this additional debris. B. Edina desires to restrict the use•of the property to green space, parking.for the Church, and a combination of those two uses. These restrictions Edina desires to maintain permanently. The Church is willing to so restrict the property only as long as the contract for deed is unpaid. C. Edina desires to retain control over-the easement across the Balfanz property to the north. The Church also desires control over that easement and requires that the control of the easement pass to it with the acquisition of the Oscar Roberts property. Mr. Palmer advises me that the Church would like a prompt decision as to-whether Edina is willing to sell the Oscar Roberts property. He further advises that the Church will buy only if the remaining points listed at A, B, and C above are resolved in favor of the Church. VeOTomas truly yours, TSE /abc S. Erickson cc: John Palmer-0 Esq. I 12 July 1974 Father Joseph L. %rxp;lio CLT LAD1 C ' , iC7' 5 C. , 3100 Edina, r :l 554s6 Dear Father Zaglio, Thanks you for *the ttr:o you cpent with ms on Uednesday U, en we Kent over all of the coin2lications and rawifications of the proposed pur- cbase by the Church of the City -owned land to the north. While the present ncrotiatior.s have apparently broken down, I still hope that we can work out arrangements suitable to all parties con - cerned, under which the land can become part of the Church property. I acs returning the Church check of December 20, 1973, in the amouht of $1,000. .I realize the Church's feeling that at come point in time you should have the right to dispose of the property. Perhaps a stipulation of "after twenty ye „rs” aught be acceptable to the City. As I pointed out, -the u4iole area is a significant feature of Edina's "front- yard "; and if the City sells it to the Church for the price originally quoted, we feel that it should be maintained as open speee and have restric- tions on future use for some period of time. The Church should not have unlimited freedoms in selling it in the near future. The City also feels that we cannot go to the expense of removing the hardened cement which we inherited. Perhaps when I return from vacation, we should set up a meeting of John Palmer, Tc3 Erickceon, Bob Short, you and me, to try to work out suitable arrangements. Sincerely yours, Warren C. Hyde City Manager WCHIhd eclojure,� sonCheck No. 242 Bob Short (Special enclosure) John Palmer -- John, do you still have our deeds? Council The Church and Edina are now in agreement as to the terms of sale writh respect to the following points: .1. Sale price of $22,500. 2. Total cash payment, $6,000. 3. The, sum of $16,500 to be paid in two equal 'annual installments of $6,000 each, with a third payment- of $4,500. The exact dates of the respective payments have not been discussed, but this is a minor point. 4. The unpaid principal balance will be-secured by a contract for deed and be guaranteed by Robert E. Short. 5. The unpaid principal balance due. under the contract will bear interest at the rate of 7 -1/2% per annum commencing when the City of Edina has removed the gravel and other debris presently on the property. 6. Edina may.rezone the property sold to the same zoning as.the adjacent property owned by the Church. DORSEY, MARQUA'RT; WINDHORST, WEST 8, -' HALLADAY OCNALD WEST MILLI J -1 --EL 2300 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING .ARM L OMMAN WILLIAM ( MARTIN •., r;o r r J•Pr OAVID A 0.1..11" WILL.. "'w w •uL [. JP. �.A'' ~ • ME— +,;L•c,', ;E'r•••r. M'I N N E A P O L 1 S,'M 1 N N E S O TA 55402 PORCOfJSL VCP "AM Tnu.. "'R M gai Sr(p..rY., 1: +•.. 00BC0t . B UPnS • JAL[ " ""pO =r :rK ,JO O KIP- • HN 'ON, A tl11r; Aa'H•J0 L• w -,•wC' r 4`•_ A �i:+. :• PUSSELL r L1N000IST L...r / J- , +NSON (612) 340 -2000 PHILIP P. BCCLTER WILLIAM B PA-E MICHCL A L.FOND - BRADFORD L FEPGUSOM CABLE' OOROW rL•!_ JAN STUV0r S G:E. J "•CN SON _ wO�•'C +.' -H r, •_,'rlrw - VIPSIL M HILL C.•:. E• ?• TELEX: 29 -0605 A A SCHw• -;; -LIEN SYEVEN A C +• -PUN, J R ^f":I —as JAI IOC. ' ac .T . !•aa iF :_1 _,, 5. El 0081., J J'. +150" rw�.r.; r•,[ TELECOPIER:(6121 340 -2868 DAVID M F-CNEK THOMAS W "'..A. STANLE• / CM•H;[5 UN l POTUEHIK - M B rA 55EL u.ST - + 7....N - �r JON F TUTTLE VE -LANE L EM1DORF I(T(R 1466 W.-FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING GCGPi[ P FIAMM1C RY rr..[_ . ;HT - -PAUL, ROSEA}AHEISERG [rE RY W,BA P TLE DENNrs BU -Air, - GEC-LE-1 BECACR CURT15 L Rol VP.I L V PET 5T. MINNESOTA SSIOI MICHAEL J PAOMCR ROBERT ARTHUR (.C158C RG LC 0 . _Irl 1612) 227 -8017 . PAUL SCMCC RL BAP-• D':1 •:EP OVA,E C JCSEP.. p +�•,�c y •.Pt•r . CURTIS L'STI NC PETER H[n:P:ASON - JAMES B V[,S(I PC:EE C J' +NS :N rl;wM A .- r•• lA C- •L' -E:. + ENSTEIN NATHAN VILLAGE CENTER MICHAEL TPUCA•TO WILLIAM J AEFPCL MICKI AT IRVING N[4ER C J. SCH.A- RE.cEO C-,E5 A GEEA CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55916 JAMES A FLAGER STEPHEN GC SCHALK - - THOMAS M 000•N J—H C Z ...... - (612) 448-4012 WILLIAM AJOHNSTONE 'TMONAS ELKINS CO-.EL-US D MAHO'" ""'N P `C•5 WILLIAM E.00 -EN - THOMAS S ERICASON EUSENC L :,: NSON WILLIAM P LUTHER WILLIAMCB WI` JC.,.'.',,_-)-ST, JR. MICHAEL E 8PESS MICE. P- _H.AD 115 THIRD STREET SOUTHWEST _ DOUGLAS 0. MCFARLAMO -- DAVID L $*EHNEN - OF COUNSEL -- DAVID E. BRONSON - - RAYMOND A PIASTER WILLIAM P SOTH ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55901 ALAN O GILLILAND LEAVITT P BARKER JOHN J TAYLOR TMCMAS R "AN'MEV (607) 268 3156 LAWRENCE R. OLIVER GEORGE E.ANOCPSON - BERNARD G- HEINZEN RICHARD 0 5.ANSON FRANK M VOIGT _ . ROBERT L VANFOSSEM M June 13, 1974 ' Honorable Members of the City Council Mr. Warren C. Hyde, City Manager �. City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Re: Sale to the Church of Our Lady of Grace " of the•former Oscar Roberts property. Dear Council Members and Mr. Hyde: The Church of Our Lady of Grace (the "Church ") has submitted another agreement, dated May 31, 1974, for the purchase of the former Oscar ,Roberts property now owned by the City of Edina. I have reviewed that agree- - . ment and have discussed the terms of the sale with Mr.. John Palmer, attorney for the Church. The Church and Edina are now in agreement as to the terms of sale writh respect to the following points: .1. Sale price of $22,500. 2. Total cash payment, $6,000. 3. The, sum of $16,500 to be paid in two equal 'annual installments of $6,000 each, with a third payment- of $4,500. The exact dates of the respective payments have not been discussed, but this is a minor point. 4. The unpaid principal balance will be-secured by a contract for deed and be guaranteed by Robert E. Short. 5. The unpaid principal balance due. under the contract will bear interest at the rate of 7 -1/2% per annum commencing when the City of Edina has removed the gravel and other debris presently on the property. 6. Edina may.rezone the property sold to the same zoning as.the adjacent property owned by the Church. DORSEY. MAROUART. WINDHORST, WEST & HALLADAY Honorable Members of the City Council . Mr. Warren C. Hyde, City Manager Page 2 June 13, 1974 7. Edina will give only a limited warranty deed to the property on payment of the contract. 8. The contract will call for acceleration of the debt -upon any default, and will require the Church to keep the property free of liens while there is any unpaid principal due under the contract for deed. 9. Edina will receive an opinion from the counsel for the Church to the effect that the purchase has been duly approved by all necessary church bodies and that the documents have been duly executed and are binding upon the Church. 10. The Church will pay all unpaid installments of special assess- ments commencing with those payable in 1974. I am advised that there are no special assessments. The Church and Edina have not yet agreed upon the following points: A. Edina desires to remove only the sand and gravel now on the property. I understand there is some additional debris, consisting of cement blocks or a pile, of hardened cement, which Edina does not desire to remove. The Church does want Edia.a to remove this additional debris.: B. Edina desires to restrict the use of the property to green ' space, parking..for the Church, and a combination of those two uses. These restrictions Edina desires to maintain permanently. The Church is willing to so restrict the.property only as long as the contract for deed is unpaid. C. Edina desires to retain control over the easement across the Balfanz property to the north. ,The Church also desires control over that easement and requires that the control of the basement pass to it with the acquisition of the Oscar Roberts property. Mr. Palmer advises me that the Church would like a prompt decision as to whether Edina is willing to sell the Oscar Roberts property. He further advises that the Church will buy only if the remaining points listed at A, B. and C above are resolved in favor of the Church. VeOT.omas truly yours, TSE /abc S. Erickson cc: John Palmer-, Esq. �� l 12 July 1974 s Father Joseph L. rnglio OUT LADY C7 G 53400 1 Edins, E:;i 5543:6 Dear Father Baf;lio, Thank you for time you cpent with ms on Wednesday when we gent over all of the cc:;)lications and ramifications of the proposed pur- chase by the Church of the City -owned land to the north. While the present cicnotiatiors have apparently broken down, I still hope that we can work out arrangements suitable to all parties con- cerned, under which the land can become part of the Church property. I am returning the Church check of December 20, 1973, in the amouht of $1,000. • I realize the Church's feeling thst at come point in time you should have the right to dispose of the property. Perhaps a stipulation of "after twenty years" eight be acceptable to the City. As Y pointed out, the whole area is a significant feature of Edina's "front- yard "; and if the City sells it to the Church for the price originally quoted, we feel that it should be maintained as open sspeee and have restric- tions on future use for some period of time. The Church should not have unlimited freedoms in selling it in the near future. The City also feels that we cannot go to the expense of removing the hardened cement which we inherited. Perhaps when I return from vacation, we should set up a meeting of John Palmer, Tcm Erickson, Bob Short, you and me, to try to work out suitable arrangements. Sincerely yours, Warren C. Hyde City Manager WCH /hd Eacl.ojureE d sonCheck No. 242 Bob Short (Special enclosure) John Palmer John, do you still have our deeds? Council TV' — MEMORAADUM T0: Mr. Warren C. Hyde s Council Members FROM: Rick Jacobson, Recreation Supervisor SUBJECT: Resurfacing of tennis courts at Highlands Park DATE: May 23, 1977 The following quotes have been received concerning the resurfacing of tennis courts at Highlands Park using a complete fibreglass membrane system. Action Courts C & H Construction Tennis West Ltd. $3,000.00 $3,380.00 $3,366.00 Recommend award of contract to Action Courts for a total of $3,000.00 4 DOLLY ROBINS JULIUS C. DAVIS M. ARNOLD LYONS SIDNEY S. ,EINBERG - MARGINS A. ORREN BERNARD ROSENBERG THOMAS D. FEINDERS ARNOLD M. OELLIS JAMES A. KARIOAN LAWRENCE ZELLE 'ELLIOT S. KAPLAN HOWARD A. PATRICK JAMES L. FETTERLY STANLEY E. KARON STANFORD ROBINS JOHN F. E15BERO fi IDNEY KAPLAN DALE I. LARSON STEPHEN A. KRUPP THOMAS C. KAYSER LEO F. FECNEY STEVEN L. ROBS JEFFREY B.HALPERN STEPHEN H. COHEN STEPHEN J. DAVIS JAMES R. SAFLEY •- - °---'ROBERT- M..WATTSON _ . STEPHEN D. GORDON GARY H. LEVINSON ROBERT J. TWEEDY .'JOSEPH HARKNESS. JR. LESLIE H. NOVAK ,M MICHAEL V. CIRESI A. JAMES ANDERSON JAMES D. STE -NCR JAMES L. HARLOW MARK J. FEIN O E RD JOHN C. HART DEBORAH J. PALMER ERNEST I. REVEAL 111 - JOHN D. SHUFF CORNELL L. MOORE WILLIAM P. LINHOFF, JR. PARREL A. CAPLAN BRUCE A. FINZCN JUDY A. ROGOSHESKE MICHAEL L. MEYER RICHARD L! VOELBEL PAUL L. OINGRAS LAWRENCE T. HOFMANN JAMES W. ROCKWELL PATRICK E. SHIPSTEAD WILLIAM H. STANHOPE TERRY L. WADE GARY J. HAUGEN JOHN G. BRIAN 111 LAW OFFICES ROBINS, DAVIS & LYONS -33 SOUTH FIFTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE 16121 339.4911 May 18, 1977 Edina City Council 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Re: 6912 Antrim Road (Lot 1, Block 1, Harold Hargrove lst Addition) -- Water Main No. 127 CHARLES H. HALPERN 11911.19691 SAINT PAUL MINNE50TA BUILDING Dear Sirs: I am the owner of the above - described property in the City of Edina. In addition, I am currently having a home constructed on that pro- perty by D. L. Russell Construction Company. I would greatly appre- ciate it if you would grant me permission to connect into the above - mentioned water main and allow payment of the.$900.00 con - nection charge to be spread over six (6) years commencing with the tax year 1978. Thank you for your courteous and prompt attention to this matter. WLawrence ours, u y Attorn ey at L�'w m RLP:gjk MEMO TO: Mr. Warren Hyde, City Manager Mayor James Van Valkenburg City 'Council Members FROM: Mr. Ken Rosland, Park and Recreation Director DATE: June 3, 1977 SUBJECT: Morningside School Property Disposition. Attached to this memorandum is an aerial.photo with a plat overlay of the Morningside School, Weber Park, and adjoining properties. As you-are aware, the School District has declared Morningside School as excess property and is closing the school this fall and is anxious to dispose of the property. Mr. Hyde asked me to serve on a committee consisting of several Morningside residents and Mr. Don Pryor: the citizen's feeling was that their number one priority would be that the City of Edina retain the whole school site and that the present park area be extended. My comments to that group was that the City may be interested in the site, but that it would have to be a donation from the School District. The property that the School District owns extends from 42nd street to a line approximately five feet in front of the present park building. (You will note that this line is drawn on the aerial photo.) It was my deep concern that before the School District disposed of their property, that the City of Edina make an effort to retain that portion of the property which is presently used.for the winter skating facilities and park purposes. A dotted line has been drawn approximately in the area that we feel the City should retain, which is approximately.two.acres'in size. Mayor Van Valkenburg, Mr. Hyde and I have met with members of the School District staff and the School Board to discuss how the City might obtain this property. The School District had an appraisal of $22,500.00 per acre. i DATE: June 3, 1977 PAGE: TWO Our City Assessor, Mr.. Kent Swanson, appraised'it at approximately $15,000.00 . per acre. After some discussion, it was proposed that the City buy the property for $37,500.00. There was some discussion that the City might pay for the property by exchanging ice time at Braemar over the next few years instead of a cash outlay, however, there is concern that.this may be illegal since the arena is a revenue producing facility and has responsibility to its revenue bonds. At.the present time the only feasible way the Park Department has to finance the purchase is to ask the School District to extend our payments over a five year period and that we pledge approximately $7,500.00 a year out of our capital improvements budget allocation. At the present time all 9f our other financial resources such as community development funds and the developers fund are committed. K,R.. Mari® iransk-L Commission _ ! 801 American Center Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612/221 -0939 May 25, 1977 Mr Warren C Hyde City Manager 4801 W 50 St Edina, MN 55424 PROPOSED PASSENGER WAITING SHELTERS 50TH ST & FRANCE AV S; 50TH ST & HALIFAX AV S EDINA, MN -- MTC CONTRACT 76 -49 -33 Dear Mr Hyde on April 21, 1976, the Metropolitan Transit Commission adopted a res- olution authorizing their participation in two shelters to be con- structed as part of the 50th Street Redevelopment Project Subsequently, a cooperative agreement (contract 76- 49 -33) was signed by the city and the MTC for this participation. During the construction period, it is our understanding that objections were raised by the adjacent property owners regarding the installation of the shelters. On January 31, 1977, we received a letter from the city indicating the desire to suspend the cooperative agreement until some unknown future date. Subsequent discussions with Mr Francis Hoff- man indicated the shelters will not be installed in the foreseeable future. Based on this information, the MTC desires to terminate, rather than suspend, the contract. In this way, the project can be removed from the work program, and the budget can be adjusted accordingly. Should the city wish to construct shelters at these locations in the future, we would be willing to again bring a proposal before the com- mission for approval. If you find the termination of the cooperative agreement acceptable, please sign the enclosed form and return one copy to the MTC. Sincere Camille D Andre Chief Administrator CDA /DRJ /kw enc cc Francis Hoffman, Joe Donelon, David Jessup K."u N it CURRENT ASSETS: CASH: Demand Deposits Working Fund Accounts Receivable Loan To Other Funds Inventory: Liquor Wine Beer and Mix Prepaid Expenses: Unexpired Insurance Supplies Inventory LIQUOR FUND BALANCE SHEET CITY OF EDINA AS AT APRIL 30, 1977 ASSETS TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS FIXED ASSETS AT COST: Land Land Improvements Buildings Furniture and Fixtures Leasehold Improvements Less Allowance for Depreciation and Amortization Construction in Progress CURRENT LIABILITIES: Trade Accounts Payable Accrued Payroll Due Tu Other Funds SURPLUS: Invested in Fixed Assets Unappropriated TOTAL ASSETS Q- $ 472,058.81 3,500.00 $ 475,558.81 100.00 415,000.00 $ 341,954.98 194,183.29 26,060.47 562,198.74 $ 2,859.20 400.00 3,259.20 $1,456,116.75 $ 152,518.85 $ 18,460.21 481,643.80 149,325.01 3,035.55 $652,464.57 225,677.46. 426,787.11 $ 579,305.96 23,763.33 603,069.29 $2,059,186.04 LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $ 131,620.38 3,671.88 $ 135,292.26 3,188.50 $ 603,069.29 1,317,635.99 1.920,705.28 $2,059,186.04 LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INI:OME AND EXPENSE CITY OF EDINA Four Months Ending April 30, 1977 and April 30, 1976 INCREASE-DECREASE' 1977 1976 sD fi York�lalp Grandview ' Total 50th St. YcsrlcdAle ' . Grandview Total 50th St. • Yorkdale Grandview Total ALES' $116,856.20 $288,828.98 $255,472.58 $661,157.76 $164,106.02 $298,095.97 $234,117.92 $696,319.91 $ 47,249.82* $ 9,266.99* $21,354,66 $ 35,162,15* Liquor 37,686.11 128,298.64 104,698.77 270,683.52 49,897.58 111,250.80 77,837.20 238,985.58 12,211.47* 17,047.84 26,861.57 31,697.94 Wine Ecer 31,007.67 90,276.84 69.667.10 190,951.61 49,278.27 89,408.51 61,367.99 200,054.77 18,270.60* 868.33 8,299.11 9,103.1 * _ Mix and Miscellaneosq, 2 700.86 8 698.51 7.103 94 18 503.31 4.334.42 9,084.86 6.254.69 . 10 673.97 1,633.56* 386.35* 849.25 1,170.66* $188,250.84 $516,102.97 $436,942.39$19141,296.20 $267,616.29 $507,840.14 $379,577.801,155,034.23 $ 79,365.45* $ 8,262.83 $57,364.59 $ 13,738.03* Less bottle refunds 5,678.82 17 629.59 16 006.11 39 314.52 4.969.58 8 236.85 6 553.89 19 760.32 709.24 9 392,74 9 452,22 _19.,554.20_ NET SALES $182,572.02 $498,473.38 $420,936.28$1,101,981.68 $262,646.71 $499,603.29 $373,023.911,135,273.91 $ 80,074.69* $ 1,129.91* $47,912.37 $ 33,292.23* CC!T OF SALES: Inventory - lanuaryl$109,208.09 $218,953.44 $195,512.91 $523,674.44 $172,534.05 $214,596.83 $219,022.28.$606,153.16 =$ 63,325.96* $ 4,356.61 $23,509.37*$ 82,478.72* Purchases 160,531.10 423,937.46 386,657.61 971 126.17 222 482.42 434 166.37 324 231.96 980 880.75 61,951.32* 10,228.91* 62 425.65 9,754.58* $269,739.19 $642,890.90 $582,170.52$1,494,800.61 $595,016.47 $648,763.20 $543,254.241,587,033.91 $125,277.28* $ 5,872.30* $38,916.28 $ 92,233.30* Invenrory*pr1130 115 037.65 223 447,86 223 713.23 562 198.74 170 770.82 234 408.81 227 223.98 632 403.61 55,733.17*- 10,960.95* 3,510.75* 70,204.87* 701-54 GROSS PROF $124,870.48 $479,030.34 $362,478.99 $169,379.81 $238,401.06 $485,248.90 $356,993.65 $180,643.61 $ 10,530.58* $ 6,218.56* $45,485.34 $ 11,263.80* OPERATING EXPENSES Scilin9 $ 15,027.30 21,813.90 19,484.92 56,326.12 19,773.23 22,140.14 17,599.58 59,512.95 4,745.93* 326.24* 1,885.34 3,186.83* Overhead 4,260.96 11,386.47 8,535.78 24,183.21 4,302.65 8,247.52 6,837.78 19,387.95 41.69* 3,138.95 1,698.00 4,795.26 Administrative 13 045.87 13 720.14 13 720.14 42 144.83 17 104.23 18 350.90 17 232.22 52 687.35 4,058.36* 2,972..08* 3,512.08* 10,542.52* TOTAL OPERATI 82,334 13 $ 48,579.19 $ 41,740.84 $122,654.16 $ 41,180 11 $ 48,738 56 $ 41,669 58 $131,588.25 $ 8,845.98* $ 159.37* $ 71.26 $ 8,934.09* EXPENSE NET OPERATING 4,463.65* $ 30,451.15 $ 20,738.15 $ 46,725.65 $ 2,779.05*$ 36,510.34 $ 15,324.07 $ 49,055.36 $ 1,684.60* $ 6,059.19* $ 5,414.08 $ 2,329.71* PROFIT' ROFIT 5 OTHER INCOME: Cash Discount � 2,326.30 5,787.85 5,556.20 13,670.35 $ 2,274.12 5,348.28 $ 3,510.84 11,133.24 52.18 439.57 2,045.36 2,537.11 Cash over or under 11.46 26.81* 47.86 32.51 1.96 39.92* 22.56 15.40* .9.50 13.11 25.30 518.75, Income on inver 518.75 518.75 518.75 Other 492.06 492.06 2,002.60 2.202.29 1.649.81 5,854.70 1 510.54* 2,202.29* 1.649.81* 5,362.64* $ 3,348.57 $ 5,761.04 $ 5,604.06 $ 14,713.67 $ 4,278.68 $ 7,510.65 $ 5,183.21 $ 16,972.54 $ 930.11* $ 1,749.61* $ 420.85 $ 2,258.87* NET INCOMt 1,115,08* $ 36,212.19 $ 26,342.21 $ 61,439 32 $ 1,499.63 $ 44,020 99 $ 20,507 28 $ 66,027.90 $ 2,614.71* $ 7,808.80* X5,834.93 $ 4,588.58* PERCENT TO NET SAL Gress profit 15.27% 15.85% 14.84% 15.37% 14.62% 17.06% 15.28% 15.91% Operating expenses 17.71 9.75 9.92 11.13 15.68 9.76 11.18 11.59 Operating profit 2,44 %* 6.10% 4.92% 4.24% 1.06 %* 7.31% 4.10% 4.32% - Other income 1.83 1.16 1.34 1.34 1.63 1.50 1.40 1.50 NET INCOM .617.* 7.26% 6.26% 5.58% .57% 8.81% 5.50% 5.82% .V CURRENT ASSETS: Cash: Demand Deposits $ 510,529.40 Working Fund. 3,500.00 $ .514,029.40 Accounts Receivable 100.00 Loan to Other Funds 415,000.00 Inventory: Liquor $ 279,613.95 Wine 150,269.81 Beer and Mix; 32,255.54 462,139.30 Prepaid Expenses: I Unexpired Insurance $ (380.80) Supplies Inventory 400.00 19.20 l TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS $1,391,287.90 I FIXED ASSETS AT.COST: Land $ 152,518.85 Land Improvements $ 18,460.21 Buildings .481,643.80 Furniture and Fixtures 149,325.01 k: Leasehold Improvements 3,035.55 $652,464.57 r Less: Allowance for Depreciation and Amortization 223,282.46 429,182.11 $ 581,700.96 Construction s in Progress 13,680.93 595,381.89 TOTAL ASSETS $1,908,572.05 N LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS t. G CURRENT LIABILITIES: Trade Accounts Payable $ 70,842.73 Accrued - Payroll 4,066.51 h $ 74,909.24 Due to Other Funds 3,188.50 F SURPLUS: i, Invested in Fixed Assets $ 595,381.89 Unappropriated 1,313,190.16 1,908,572.05 } TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $1,908,572.05 i' i. n i LA LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INC AND EXPENSE CITY OF EDINA Three Months Ending March 31, 1977 and March 31, 1976 INCREASE-DECREASED. 1977 1976 _. ' 't Yorkjile Grandview ' Total 50th St. Yorlcdale Total- -. Grnndvie-w Total -,.50th St. Yorkdale GrandVi�w Total ' 'ALES: $ 84,139.14 $208,361.42 $182,258.61 $474,759.17 $122,270.21 $220,308.93 $169,601.40 $512,180.54 $ 38,131.07* $11,947.51* $12,657.21 $ 37,421.37* 26,741.84 92,440.46 73,774.60 192,956,90 37,798.10 82,398.62 56,571.47 176,868.19 11,056.26* 10,041.84 17,103.13 16,088.71 Wine 21,014.03 61,234.19 47,193.37. 129,441.59. 35,202.49 63,495.14 42,741.05 141,438:68- 14,188.46* 2,260.95* 4,452.32 11,997.09* Ecer Via and MiscelloneoW 1,803.23 5,870.12 4,811.49 12,484 .84 3,178.98 6,726.59 4,465o95 14 371.52 1 375.75* 856.47* 345.54 1,886.68* $133,698.24 $367,906.19 $308,038.07 $809,6V.50 $198,449.78 $372,929.28L$273,479.87.$844,858.93 64,751.54* 5,023.09* $34,558.20 $ 35,216.43* Less bottle refunds 4,001 40 12,524 17 10,972 66 27,498 23 3,671.07 5,968.30 4,695.55 14,334.92 330.33 6,555.87 6,277.11 13,163.31 NET SALES $129,696.84 $355,382.02 $297,065.41 $782,144.27 $194,778.71 $365,960.98 $268,784.32 _ $830.524.01 $ 65,081.87* $11,578.96* $28,281.09 $ 48,379.74* CC;T OF SALES: Inventory - January 1 109,208.09 218,953.44 195,512.91 523,674.44 $172,534.05 $214,596.83 $219,022.28 $606,153.16 $ 63,325.96* 4,356.61 23,509.37* 82,478.72* ?urcheses 103,929 53 252,735 18 243,282.28 599,946 99 174,188.61 310,248.65 250,604.83 735,042.09 _ 70,259.08* 57,513.47* 7,322.55* 135,095.10* $213,137.62 $471,688.62 4438,795.19$1,123,621.43 $346,722.66 $524,845.48 $469,627.111,341,195.25 $133,585.04* $53,156.86* $30,831.92*$217,573.82* inventory- Mar.31 103 317 12 172,665.87 186,156.31 462,139.30 180,566 17 220,742 02 242 077.20 643,385.39 77,249.05* 48,076.15* 55,920.89* 181,246.09* $109,820.50 $299,022.75 $252,638.88 $661,482.13 $166,156.49 $304,103.46 $227,549.91 $697.809.86 $ 56,335.99* $ 5,080.71* $25,088.97 $ 36,327.73 *. GROSS.PROF $ 19,876.34 $ 56,359.27 $ 44,426.53 $120,662.14 $ 28,622.22 $ 62,857.52 $ 41,234.41 $132,714.15 $ 8,745.88* $ 6,498.25* $ 3,192.12 $ 12,052.01* OPERATING EXPENSES Stein9 9,092.22 ' 13,356.40 12,153.48 34,602.10 13,468.27 15,970.71 12,573.60 42,012.58 4,376.05* 2,614.31* 420.12 *' 7,410.48* OycrFcod 3,213.87 7,346.19 6,487.72 17,047.78 2,860.84 5,915.88 4,800.26 13,576.98 353.03 1,430.31 1,687.46 3,470.80 Aeministrative 9 058.47 10 284.74 9,507.53 28 850.74 12 542.39 13 177.66 12.375.50 38 095.55 3,483.92* 2,892.92* 2,867.97* 9,244.81* TOTAL OPEBATI 21,364 56 $ 30,987 33 $ 28,148 73 $ 80,500.62 $ 28,871 50 $ 35,064 25 29,749o36 $ 93,685.11 $ 7,506.94* $ 4,076.92* $ 1,600.63*$ 13,184.49* EXPENSE. 1,488.22* $ 25,371.94 $ 16,277.80 $ 40,161.52 $ 249.28*$ 27,793.27 $ 11,485.05 $ 39,029.04 $ 1,238.94* $ 2,421.33* $ 4,792.75 $ 1,132.48 NET PROFIT OTHER INCOME: Cash Discount 1,512.03 3,318.15 3,412.60 .8,242.78 1,865.18 4,086.18 2,780.60 8,731.96 353.15* 768.03* 632.00 489.18* Cash over or under 5.94 24.94* 39.64. 20.64 .60* 15.83* 5.39 *" 21.82* 6.54 9.11* 45.03 42.46 Income on inner 518.75 518.75 -0- -0- 518.75 518.75 Ocher 362 40 362 40 1, 873.7'5 2 202.29 1,649.81 5,725.85 - 1 s 511.35* 2,202o29* 1,649.81* 5,363.45* $ 2,399 12 $ 3,293 21 $ 3,452 24 $ 9,144 57 $ 3,738 33 $ 6,272 64 $ 4,425.02 $ 14,435 99 $ 1,339.21* $ 2,979.43* $ 972.78 *$ 5,291.42 *. NET INCOMI $ 910.90 $ 28,665 15 $ 19,730 04 $ 49,306 09 $ 3,489 05 $ 34,065.91 $ 15,910.07 $ 53,465.03 $ 2,578.15* $ 5,400.76* $ 3,819.97 $ 4,158.94* PERCENT TO NET SAL Gress profit :• ' 15.33% 15.86% 14.96% 15.43% 14.69% 17.13% 15.34% 15.987 0 ^,erating expenses 16.48 8.72 9.48 10.30 14.82 9.56 11.07 11.28 Operating profit 1.157* 7.14% 5.48% 5.13% .13 %* 7.57% 4.27% 4.70% Other income 1.85 .93 1.16 1.17 1.92 1,71_ 1.65 1.74 NET INCOME - .70% 8.07% 6.64% 6.307. 1.79% 9.28% 5.92% 6.44% i LIQUOR FUND BALANCE SHEET CITY OF EDINA As.at February 28, 1977 ASSETS .. CURRENT ASSETS: Cash: Demand Deposits $ 372,265.51 Working Fund 3,500.00 $ 375,765.51 Accounts Receivable 100,00 Loans to Other Funds 415,000.00 Inventory: $ 371,483.36 . Liquor 174,110.18 Wine Beer and Mix 28,026.06 573,619.60 Prepaid Expenses: Unexpired Insurance $ 800.20 Supplies Inventory 400.00 1,200.20 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS $1,365,685.31 :.' FIXED ASSETS AT COST: Land $ 152,518.85 Land Improvements $ 18,460.21 Buildings 481,643.80 Furniture and Fixtures 149,325.01 { Leasehold Improvements 3,035.55 $652,464.57 Less Allowance for Depreciation N and Amortization 220,887.46 431,577.11 & $ 584,095.96 Construction in Progress 13,282.93 597,278.89 TOTAL ASSETS $1.963,064.20 LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS G ".: CURRENT LIABILITIES: k Trace Accounts Payable $ 63,229.05 Accrued Payroll 7,942.52 $ 71,171.57 :. Due to Other Funds 3,188.50 SURPLUS:'. Invested in Fixed Assets $ 597,378.89 Unappropriated 1,291,325.24 1,888,704.13 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $1,963,064.20 F x Q b A. r LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND` COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSE CITY OF EDINA .� Two Months Ending February 28, 1977 and February 29, 1976 INCREASE- DECREASE' 1977 1976 st)th It. York l* Grandview' Total 50th St YorkdAle Grandview Total • 50th St. Yorkdale Grandview Total l ALES: $ 54,333.05 $134,009.89 $119,110.92 $307,453.86 $ 79,589.97 $144,688.73 $113,096.59 $337,375.29 $25,256.92* 2,561.58* $10,678.84* $ 6,014.33 $29,921.43* Liquor 17 714.89 60 331.61 48 182.96 126 229.46 25 280.59 54 086.12 37 972.83 117 339.54 7,565.70* 193.83 6,245.49 10 210.13 8,889.92 Wine 13 462.27 38,458.22 30 256.76 , 82,177.25 22 944.93 , 40 729.30 r 27 620.98 , 91 295.21 , 9 , 482.66* 2 271.08* r 2 635.78 9 117.96* Eeer 1,111.01 3,711 63 3,143 51 7,966.15 2,106.64 4,316.19 2,978.65. 9,401.48 36,390.41 995.63 604.56_ 164.86 1,435.33 _ Mix and Miscellaneotq, $ 86,621.22 $236,511.35 $200,694.15 $523,826.72 $129,922.13 $243,820.34 $181,669.05 $555,411.52 $43,300.91* S37.622.05* $ 7,308.99 $19,025.10 $31,584.50"k Less battle refunds. 2,649 81 8,113 88 7,090 30 17,853.99 2,452.41 3,831.01 3,145.52 9,428.94 $ 25,722.27 197.40 4,282.87 3,944.78 8,425.05 NET SALES $ 83,971.41 $228,397.47 $193,603.85 $505,972.73 $127,469.72 $239,989.33 $178,523.53 $545,982.58 $43,498.31* $11,59.1.86* $15,080.32 $40,009.85* :C;T OF SALES: Inventory - lanuoryl 109,208,09 218,953.44 195,512.91 523,674.44 172,534.05 214,596.83 219,022.28 606,153.16 63,325.96* 2,561.58* 4,356.61 23,509.37* 82,478.72* 3,534.64* Purchases 87,801.21 194,944.14_ 194,860.41, 477,655.76 98 487.71 194,009.49 155,756.75 448,253.95 10,686.50* 193.83 984.65 39,103.66 29,401.81 Administrative 6,346 40 $197,009.30 $413,947.58 $390,373.32$1,001,330.20 $271,021.76 $408,606.32 $374,779.031,054,407.11 $74,012.46* 23,704.92 $ 5,341.26 $15,594.29 $53,076.91* lnventory- Feb.28 125,930 88 221,822 73 225,865.99 573 619.60 162 321.29 209 839.22 223,627.52 525,788.03 36,390.41 *' 11,983.51 2,238.47 22,1.68.43* EXPENSE S 71 n7A_G9 Slog 191._RS Al ALL _Sn7_'1'1 81477 71n-An Alna_700_47 S19R_767.10 81151.151.51 S45R_619.08 S37.622.05* S 6.642.25* $13.355.82 $30.908.48* 2,391.47* GROSS PROF $ 12,892.99 $ 36,272.62 $ 29,096.52 $ 78,262.13 $ 18,769.25 $ 41,222.23 $ 27,372.02 $ 87,363.50 $ 5,876.26* $ 4,949.61* $ 1, OPERATING EXPENSES ScI'ing 6,691.13 .9,633.63 8,808.83 25,133.59 9,252.71 10,681.93 8,733.59 28,668.23 2,561.58* 1,048.30* 75.24 . 3,534.64* Ovcnccod 2,246.93 5,439.79 4,273.23 11,959.95 2,053.10 3,873.06 3,341.92 9,268.08 193.83 1,566.73 931.31 2,691.87 Administrative 6,346 40 6,969 99 6,674 18 19,990.57 7,984.43 8,058.66 7,661.83 23,704.92 1,638.03* 1,088.67* 987.65 *3.714.35* TOTAL OPERATI $ 1;-,i84,46 $ 22,043 41 $ 19,756 24 $ 57,084.11 $ 19,290.24 $ 22,613.65 $ 19,737.34 $ 61,641.23 $ 4,005.78* $ 570.24* $ 18.90 $ 4,557.12* EXPENSE NET orERAT;ItG$ 2,391.47* $ 14,229.21 $ 9,340.28 $ 21,178.02 $ 520.99*$ 18,608.58 $ 7,634.68 $ 25,722.27 $ 1,870.48* $ 4,379.37* $ 1,705.60 $ 4,544.25* PROFIT OTHER INCOME: Discount $ 1,420.96 $ 2,986.31 $ 3,039.82 $ 7,447.09 $ 964.63 $ 2,875.24 $ 1,749.07 $ 5,588.94 $ 456.33 $ 111.07 $ 1,290.75 $ 1,858.15 Cash Cash over or under 8.99 .64* 38.68 47.03 5.24* 12.35* 38.02 20.43 14.23 11.71 .66 26.60 Income on inve 518.75 518.75 -0- -0- 518.75 518.75 Other 247.28 247.28 1,782.10 2.202.29 1 649.81 5,634.20 1,534.82* 2,202.29* 1,649.81* 5.386-.92* $ 2,195 98 $ 2,985 67 $ 3,078.50 $ 8,260 15 $ 2,741.49 $ 5.065.18 $ 3,436.90 11,243.57 545.51* $ 2,079.51* $ 358.40*$ 2,983.42* NET INCOMI $ 195.49* $ 17,214 88 $ 12,418 78 $ 29,438.17 $ 2,220.50 $ 23 673.76 $ 11,071.58 $ 36,965.84 $ 2,415.99* $ 6,458.88* $ 1,347.20 $ 7,527.67* PERCENT TO NET SALES:. Gress profit 15.35% 15.88% 15.03% 15.47% 14.72% 17.187. 15.35% 16.00% Operating e,penses 18.20 9.65 10.20 11.28 15.13 9.43 11.06 11.29 Operating profit 2.85 %* 6.23% 4.83% 4.19% .41 %* 7.75% 4.27% 4.71% Other inccma 2.62 1.31 1.59 1.63 2.15 2.,11 1.93 2.06 NET INCOME' ,23% 7.54% 6.42% 5.82% 1.74% 9.86% 6.20% 6.77% CURRENT ASSETS: Cash: Demand Deposits Working Fund Accounts Receivable Loan to Other Funds Inventory Liquor Wine Beer and Mix Prepaid Expenses Unexpired Insurance Supplies Inventory FIXED ASSETS AT COST: Land Land Improvements Buildings Furniture and Fixtures Leasehold Improvements LIQUOR FUND BALANCE SHEET CITY OF EDINA As at January 31, 1977 ASSETS TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS $ 18,460.21 481,643.80 149,325.01 3.035.55 $652,464.57 $ 382,491.74 3,500.00 $ 343,461.52 164,316.08 26,308.08 $ 385,991.74 100.00 415,000.00 534,085.68 $ 1,981.20 400.00 2,381.20 $1,337,558.62 $ 152,518.85 Less Allowance for Depreciation and Amortization 218,492.46 433,972.11 $ 586,490.96 Construction in Progress 14,921.88 601,412.84 TOTAL ASSETS $1.938,971.46 LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS CURRENT LIABILITIES: Trade Accounts Payable Accrued Payroll Due to Other Funds SURPLUS: Invested in Fixed Assets Unappropriated TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $ 54,915.43 7,203.27 $ 62,118.70 3,188.50 $ 601,412.84 1,272,251.42 1,8735664.26 $1,938,971.46 LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSE CITY OF EDINA One Month Ending January 31, 1977 and January 31, 1976 INCREASE•OECREASP 1977 70rk,1i10 Grandview ' Total 50th St Yorlcdale _ Grandview Total 50th St. Yorkdale Grandview Total :ALES: Liquor $ 27,282.57 $ 68,009.79 $ 60,057.91 $155,350.27 $ 40,807.42 $74,512.71 $ 59,550.24 $174,870.87 $13,524.85* $ 6,502.92* $ 507.17 $ 19,520.60*, ' Wine 8,684.74 29,945.11 24,125.35 62,755.20 12,942.46 28,027.72 19,696.32 60,666.50 4,257.72* 1,917.39 4,429.03 2,088.70 Ecer 6,595.55 19,094.45 15,180.56 40,870.56 12,182.61 20,599.27 14,556.11 47,337.99 5,587.06* 1,504.82 624.45 6,467.43* Mix and MisceOoneouy, 547.84 1,850.66 1.518.55 3,917.05 1.908.14 2.159.14 1,526.92 4 784.20 550.30* 308.48* 8.37* 867.15* $ 43,110.70 $118,900,01 $100,882.37 $262,893.08 $ 67,030.63 125,298.84 $ 95,330.09 $287,659.56 $23,919.93* $ 6,398.83* $ 5,552.28 $ 24,766.48* Less bottle refunds 1 350.29 4 146.84 3 572.21 9 069.34 1 268.88 1,976.64 1,687.04 4.932.56 81.41 2,170.20 1,885.17 4,136.78 NET SALES $ 41.760.41 $114,753.17 $ 97,310.16 $253,823.74 $ 65,761.75 123,322.20 $ 93,643.05 $282,727.00 $24,001.34* $ 8,569.03* $ 3,667.11 $ 28,903.26* C:ST OF SALES: Ir.rentory - lanuoryl$109,208.09 $218,953.44 $195,512.91 Purchases 44,252.04 82,431.60 98,540.50 $153,460.13 $301,385.04 $294,053.41 Inrentory4an.31 118,028.27 204,695.41 211,362.00 $ 35,431.86 $ 96,689.63 $ 82,691.41 GROSS PROF $ 6,328.55 $ 18,063.54 $ 14,618.75 OPERATING EXPENSES Scl :ing , 3,714.80 4,410.06 4,749.06 Oycrhead 1,293,92 2,830.01 2,102.17 Administrative 2 978.65 3,339.33 3,179.11 TOTAL OPERATI _ 7,986.47 $ 10,579.40 $ 10,030.34 EXPENSE 7 73% 6.38% 5.67% NET orER,;T7Yj 1,657.92* $ 7,484.40 $ 4,588.41 PROFIT 467.41 $ 9,529.95 $ 4,501.46 $ OTHER INCOME: 835.16 1,373.50 1,591.64 Cc$% Discount 3,800.30 554.02 1,122.80 Cosh over or under 4.04 9.35 32.00 Income on inver 1,231.15 45.39 .01* 2.50* Other 137.98 4.05 11.85 $ 977.18 $ 1,382.85 $ 1,623.64 NET INCOM•S 680.74* $ 8.866.99 $ 6,212.05 $523,674.44 $172,534.05 214,596.83 $219,022,28 $606,153.16 $63,325.96* $ 4,356.61 $23,509.37 *$ 82,478.72* 225,224 14 57,428.56 106,474 92 81,693 92 245 597.40 13,176.52 *_ 24,043.32* 16,846.58 20,373.26* $748,898.58 $229,962.61 321,071.25 $300,716.20 $851,250.56 $76,502.48* $19,686.71* $ 6,662.79*$102,851.98* 534,085.68 173,863 07 2181988.88 221,281.31 614,133 26 55,834.80* • 14,293.47* 9,919.31* 80,047.58* $214,812.90 $ 56.099 102 082,87 79 434.89 $237.617.30 $20.667.68* $5,393.24* 3,256.52 4 22,804.40* $ 39,010.84 41 9,662•.21 21,239.33 $ 14,208.16 $ 45,109.70 $ 3,333.66* $'3,175. 9* $ 410.59 $ 6,098.86* 12,873.92 5,127.07 6,207.86 4.895.03 16,229.96 1,412.27* 1,797.80* 145.97* - 3,356.04* 6,225.20 766.31 2,243.18 1,610.43 4,619.92 526.71 586.83 491.74 1,605.28 9,497.09 3,301.42 3,258.34 3,201.24 9,761.00 322.77* 80.99 22.13* 263.91* $ 28,596 21 $ 9,194.80 $11,709 38 $ 9,706 70 $ 30,610 88 $ 1,208.33 * $ 1,129.98* $ 323.64 $ 2,014.67* NET INCOM 1 63 %t• 7 73% 6.38% 5.67% 4.17% 10.42% 7.53% 8.01 %_ $ 10,414.63 $ 467.41 $ 9,529.95 $ 4,501.46 $ 14,498.82 $ 2,125.33* $ 21045.81 $ 86.95 $ 4,084.19* 3,800.30 554.02 1,122.80 892.33 2,569.15 281.14 250.70 699.31 1,231.15 45.39 .01* 2.50* 7.79 5.28 4.05 11.85 24.21 40.11 137.98 1,720 86 2,202.29 1,649.81 5,572.96 1,582.88* 2.202.29* 1,649.81* 5,434.98* 3,983 67 $ 2,274 87 $ 3,322 59 $ 2,549 93 $ 8,147 39 $ 1,297.69* $ 1.939.74* $ 926.29 *$ 4,163.72* S 14.398.30 $ 2.742.28 $12,852.54 $ 7,051 39 $ 22,646 21 $ 3,423.02* $ 3,985.55* $ 839.34 *$ 8,247.91* PERCENT TO NET SALES:. 15.15% 15.74% 15.02% 15.37% 14.69% 17.22% 15.17% 15.96% Gress profit Operating expenses 19.12 9.22 10.30 11.27 13.98 9.49 10.36 10.83 Operating profit 3.97 %* 6.52% 4.72% 4.10% .71% 7.73% 4.81% 5.13% Other incema 2.34 1.21 1.66 1.57 3.46 2.¢9 2.72 2.88 NET INCOM 1 63 %t• 7 73% 6.38% 5.67% 4.17% 10.42% 7.53% 8.01 %_ v "o R T• 1, A. D. 1955 Volume 781 FIR 'z JAP 237242 DISTRICT COURT N9 12181 Originally registered the 16th day of July Page 237239 5 t e` �jfGC(l�l�%lexr4A( //&W Independent School District X17, Hennepin County' Minnesota a Minnesota corporation having its principal place of business at 5701 Normandale Road in the Village of Edina, County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SE4 of the NEI) described as beginning at the Southwest corner, thence East Four Hundred Thirty -nine and 75/100 (439.75) feet along the South line of the Southeast Quarter (SE-�)of the Northeast Quarter (NEJ), thence North Six Hundred Sixty feet (660), thence West Four Hundred Thirty -nine and 63 /100 (439.63) feet to the West line of the Southeast Quarter (SEJ) of the Northeast Quarter (NEI), thence South Six Hundred Sixty (660) feet to the place of beginning, except the North One it Hundred Twenty -five (125) feet thereof, in Section Seven (7), Township Twenty- eight'(?8) Range Twenty -four (24). ij S i y �. I t •1 .:.1 i:: C a.c�s/��.a:rizrrc�rc�ifrrrzc�J; ,�r��ra l��i/ A7 2r�IZ0' trCLG, rr/ IPrt'• P/ Lu�cG�/ �ir/ r,( r1i ,�riu�UIDPII' /�1G�/tP- O'rI/,• .ad'�/Lovu�cGri z��i�- 1ar�����1caLr/�,aP.r,� cna� of %l�i.,Cic %ef�iti•�trrGirZr ,%/ ��i.> l�./!' �. iJ�% C�i�irJrv, O�ieei/J' LC�,I �/I 2�/% �/ �iif�//% �Pi% Pi�O•- O��% 1�, �iCe%//' GP/ LG� !/�U,I.Ii�,G�i�fY.�iJ� /C(�P��G� d > � �> .o�ii/•'id ,1 /�i,�pi. crir�rco�ilrrJ ur2�i�ii.u��r�iliojL%lP.ca>ui/. cc�, r ;��II �GI,r //lC� .(rJj�p'i L!'/%GOG/ //IZ(/�.rs/'CPP�'J �%iYii!.ri /I P. rGZf1, rCylPi/ 7//% �LI' �%// iCO�r. IG✓ llrL//. oCI '�I.L,Cl,7i%I.O�L:,(J�ii� /IP/ Gl�)/?•CIIPO.lG1�P/l/� [P/ifY,CIQP/. G�/(/ ��l/' I��/ LiJt/ aC�A/ J, �' 7rLL• llL/ �/.'( �/.I i�Y��P/ rlP, dY' iZ�% O�LiO�A1LI���/ i�/ l7. CG/. GIC eC� /�//I�%/iFGPP/,CI /i�Lf7..P•l7 P, 11, O�uY��il /�/�,P.!'//�2P�i'O•i�%®' .nceleri/ e/ I/ �` �_�� . �ilr�% J. r�r���P, p' �, o1i/ lc��r.✓. �o�. u��i ,P.a9�,��u�i,CO��pa�i1�•Pia� [. pica. ��. o��ira�.rD,�,i�I,vci.L�,`,�•uf' G✓,�c�. ?. cif/ ilJ��rcrv�/ i�iiL ;riz�nJ,ted�L'ri�L,�urlrrL, cans' lac' rr1i, ��P. rii�iv�l�iP; atrtn.P�iio�ili'�ecriLl�irr,:lL . JAI Idi14 sw,7171 L ,VQ ��i�uPi iu�Zeeaxl acc�Jrlc�nt�imv`� �G,�f>f !���,a ,�, ,recce %uQ Sixteenth x /2� rl July �%�5 Donald C. Bennyhof f o e.��Crlcd�lll/v�l'��GILi.D, o J1iV, ff,I �aL�1/u� ar d� o� inn u�v trrrc��lr %%lc�r�reaa7r� By DEPUTY �V�( li6�ilAi vla i _• .n»z. I T. JVN- F' ATr` ebv T7T7Ii�' J7F7l?F.Tn Ar7Ar.M D. OT L.STATES.bASE.4tENTSOR GlJ•ARGES UN711GLAiVUUraKirtinisli AMOUNT 1JV 1111. %J Ix' ..��.... �. _. _ _. RUNNING /N FAVOR O / -- --__ -- _ _ -- -- - -- -- SIGNATURE OF REGISTRAR NUMBER KIND OF INSTRUMENT DATE OFINSTRUN[Am DATE OF REGISTRATION MONTN DAY YEAR MONTH OAY YEAR HOUR F__ 957 Oct On lay 1 h 3 196 la 1963 9:40 d 3'' 50 Directing that above school distr is assigned identification No 243 & to be legally identified by sd number* Ct Ben K. Allison By De t 7202 Order Sept 6