1888-1989 Archive Minutes
Minutes 1958 - 1974
12/24/2013 8:09:07 AM
12/23/2013 11:48:59 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 CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL ON MONDAY <br />JULY 1, 1974 <br />Answering rollcall were Council members Courtney, Sohnson, Schmid <br />Mayor Van Valkenburg. <br />, Shaw and <br />MINUTES of June 3, 1974, were approved as presented by motion of Councilman <br />Shaw, seconded by Councilman Courtney and carried. <br />ISSUE AREA 2 CONTINUED; ISSUE AREA 4 OF WESTERN EDINA TRAFFIC TASK FORCE TABLED <br />UNTIL FURTHER PLATTED. <br />Issue Area 4 - Mr. Dunn recalled that at the meeting of June.3, 1974, Issue Area <br />4 had been continued to this meeting to give residents bn opportunity to study <br />the matter further. llr. Jack Liebenberg, 5112 Ridge R6ad, said that he repre- <br />sented twenty-four property owners on Ridge Road and Interlachen Blvd., and that <br />Nestern Edina have any impact or'effect on Issue Area 4. <br />talked with Messrs. Carl and Harvey Hansen, the major property owners of the <br />undeveloped property in the area, and that they had no definite plans or plats <br />to submit for final development at the present time and that it might be <br />several years before they are ready to do so. & requested by Mr. Liebenberg, <br />Councilman Johnson's motion was then seconded by Councilman Courtney to table <br />consideration of the traffic circulation pattern for Issue Area 4, with the <br />understanding that when and if Mr. Hansen comes in with overall development <br />plans for the property that he owns, that the plat should include some access <br />to the North at the Maloney Avenue interchange, 'On rollcall there were five <br />ayes and no nays and the motion was carried. <br />Issue Area 2 - Mr. Dunn recalled that at the meeting of June 3, 1974, the City <br />Attorney had been dir-ected to render an opinion,as to whether the City could <br />legally construct a road connecting Walnut Drive and Londonderry Road as pro- <br />posed in Alternative 1 and as to whether the City could' legally build a road <br />across existing park land to connect Londonderry Drive with Gleason Road as <br />proposed in AlteTnative 5, <br />whether or not a road has already been established from Valnut Drive to London- <br />derry Road over and across Nine Mile Creek. .Mr. Erickson summarized his opinion <br />on the road between Walnut Drive and Londonderry Road by stating that if the <br />Council believes that it is now in the best interest of the City to open the <br />road, it'should not do so without first obtaining a declatory judgment that <br />the mad exists or that the property across Nine Mile Creek was conveyed to <br />the City free of any implied restriction that it be used for park purposes. <br />said that if the Council believes the road should not now be opened, it is <br />recommended that no action now be taken either to vacate or abandon the road <br />and that the City can best retain its future options relative to this connect- " <br />ion by taking no such action at this time. <br />opinion as to whether or not the City could build a road across existing park <br />land to connect Londonderry Drive with Gleason Road by saying that it would <br />appear that the City cannot legally'construct that portion of the road which <br />would run through the park unless approval wou_ld be granted by the Secretary <br />of HUD and unless the deed from the Minnesota Conference of the United Church <br />of Christ, whereby a part of the road area was conveyed to Edina, eml'd ha changed <br />to allow such use. <br />My. Erickson listed the following three conditions under which the conversion of <br />HUD lands could be used for public roads: <br />1. The conversion is essential'to the orderly development and growth of the <br />area involved; <br />2. The conversion is in accord with the comprehensively planned development of <br />the urban area; and <br />3. The open-space land is being or will be replaced without cost to the Federal <br />Government by other open space land or at least equal fair market value at <br />the time of conversion and of nearly as feasible equivalFnt usefulness and <br />location. <br />*his group does not feel that decisions made on any of the other Issue Areas in <br />He said that he had <br />Mr. Erickson had also been requested to determine <br />, <br />He <br />Mr. Erickson summarized his <br />In reply to questions of Mr. Lloyd Cherne, 5704 View Lane, <br />.I <br />Mr. Erickson clarffied that a more serious problem was that the land between <br />Londonderry Road and the HUD parcels had been dedicated for park purposes by the <br />Minnesota Conference of the United Church of Christ, which property the City has <br />no authority under the law to divert. <br />could be deeded back to.the church and then use condemnation through eminent <br />domain for the road. .Mr.. Erickson told Mr. Cherne that specific legislative <br />authority would be necessary for such action. <br />the land could be given back to the,church, the road built and assessed against <br />the church; that the church would be probably %ore than glad" to give the pro- <br />perty back to the City for road purppses. <br />do an environmental study to satisfy NEPA and that the Council could declare a <br />moratorium on any additional building in the area. Mr. Cherne added that this <br />Mr. Cherne suggested that the property <br />Mr. Cherne then suggested that if <br />He also suggested that the City could
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.