1888-1989 Archive Minutes
Minutes 1958 - 1974
12/24/2013 8:09:02 AM
12/23/2013 11:47:56 AM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE REGULARMEETING OF THE <br />EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL HELD AT VILLAGE HALL ON <br />MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 197 1 <br />5 <br />Members answering rollcall were *Councilmen I Courtney, Johnson, Shaw and Van <br />Valkenburg who served as Mayor Pro Tem in the absence of Hayor Bredesen. <br />. OATH-OF OFFICE was administered by the Clerk to Councilman Willis F. Shaw . <br />whose term of office will run to January 1, 1974. L <br />I MAPOR ‘PRO TEM APPOINTED: -Mot?%on; o€4C-ou$cQiian John.+o$ t;ra_S. seconded by (Toundil: <br />man Shaw and carried appointing Councilman VanValkenburg as Hayor Pro Tem for <br />the year 1971. <br />ORDINANCE NO. 811-3 (261-216 before Codification) SECOND READING CONTINUED, <br />Mr. Hyde presented Okdinance No. 811-3 (261-216 before Codification) noting <br />that First Reading for this property zoning had been granted on December 21, <br />1970. <br />may be created by the additional traffic in the area; 2) Height of buildings <br />immediately adjacent to R-1 Residential District; and 3) Who will pay for the <br />improvements that will be made:if-ghe plan recommended by Howard, Needles, <br />Tammen & Bergendoff is adopted. <br />would-certainly be assessed against the developers and that they have been told <br />that the Village does not intend to spend General Funds and that certainly <br />there would be no assessment against the residential propkrtxes‘on-fEe N6rth <br />side, <br />general discussions with the developers they have been so informed. Council- <br />man Johnson’s motion offering Second Reading of the Ordinance was seconded by <br />Mr, Courtney on the basisithat no objections were heard from owners of neigh- <br />boring properties..- Mr, Hyde added .that the pam&’o€+te&e gentleman who had <br />complained ofenot being notified of meetings in regard to this proposed zon- <br />ing was on the mailing list., Cauncilman VahValkenhurg:.questibned ‘the iSziSdom <br />of granting Second Reading until a definite ’agreement had been signed wh-ich <br />would stipulate the method by which the assessments would be levied. Concen- <br />sus of opinion of Council was that any improvements made in the 70th Street <br />~ area and not paid for by the Highway Department should be paid, at least to a <br />large extent,by the developers of this project. Mr. Nilliam Larsogrepres- <br />enting Midwest Planning & Research. in behalf of the developers, said that he <br />was sure that the developers would do what was deemed necessary when the time <br />comes for the assessment of the improvements, Nr. Erickson pointed out that, <br />without some agreement signed by the developers, they can always argue that <br />other people are benefitted and should, therefore, be assessed. Mr. Larson <br />said that of the 17,000 estimated vehicles pee da$’goi-ilg ’Easge&;$;” ?&h st: <br />43000 would.turn South on the Frontage Road and not necessarily go to the <br />development under consideration. <br />man Johnson withdrew his motion, whereupon Councilman Courtneg’ s motion that <br />the rezoning be continued until satisfactory agreement has been reached with <br />the developers as to the assessment of the improvements was seconded by <br />Councilman Shaw and carried. <br />Councilman Johnson expressed concern about 1) Traffic problems that <br />Mr. Hyde said that cost of the improvements <br />Mr. Hyde added that natjhing specific has been worked out but that in <br />. <br />Following considerable discussion , Counci 1- <br />CLAGWR FOURTH ADDITION GRANTED FINAL APPROVAL. <br />Fourth Addition for final approval noting that time had elapsed since prelim- <br />ary approval had been granted because a.subdivision‘agreement had not: been <br />previously filed. Councilman Johnson thereupon offered the following resolu- <br />tion and moved its adoption: <br />Mr. Hyde presented Clagramar <br />RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF <br />CLAGRAMAR FOURTH ADDITION * BE IT RESOLVED by the Village Council of the Village of Edina, Minnesota, that <br />that certain plat entitled “Clagramar Fourth Addition”, platted by Claude W.. <br />’Callaghan and Grace B, Callaghan, husband and wife, and presented at the Meet- <br />ing of the Edina Village Council of January’4, 1971, be and is hereby granted <br />final approval. <br />Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilman Courtney and <br />on rollcall there were four ayes and no nays and the resolution was adopted. <br />HOUSING CODE STANDARDS ADOPTION BY LEGISLATURE URGED. Mr. Stuart Webb advised <br />that he had been asked by the Human Rights Commission to appear before Council <br />to explain the Tenants’ Rights Bills, endorsement of which the Human Rights <br />Commission had requested Council approval at the December 21, 1970, meeting. <br />Councilman Johnson said that, while he agreed in principle with the bills, <br />he wondered if the matter is actually within the jurisdiction of the Human <br />Rights Commission. Councilman VanValkenburg said that he does not believe that <br />there is sufficient reality in the bills and that he believes that they tend to <br />“over-react”. <br />I. <br />’ <br />Following general discussion as to the rights of landlords, as
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.