Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING <br />OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL <br />HELD AUGUST 30, 1974, 4:30 P.M. <br />AZ' EDINA CITY HALL .. <br />Answering rollcall were members Courtney, Schmidt, Shaw arid Mayor Van Valkenburg. <br />KRAHL HILL CONDEMNATIOM CONTIhTED TO SEPTEMBER 7, 1976. Mr. Hyde advised Council <br />that this meeting had been called at the recommendation of the City Attorney so <br />that the Council could decide whether or not to appeal the Comzissioners' award <br />for Krahl Hill. Mr, Erickson reviewed his letter to the Council dated August <br />26, '1376, in which he had presented information for Council's consideration of the <br />$324,000 awarcl, recalling that the City Appraiser had valued the property at <br />$277,000 and the landowners' appraiser had valued the property at $450,000. <br />Erickson advised that the City had been served with a Notice of Appeal in the <br />matter of the Krahl Hill condemnation and also that a demand has been made by <br />Mr. Gittleman for payment of three-fourths of the award, as permitted by law, such <br />amount being $243;000. Mr. Erickson clarified that, in addition to the require- <br />ment of prompt payment of the $243,000, the statute relating to appeals states <br />that any party may, within 40 days from the date of filing of the Commissioners' <br />award, appeal the award by filing a notice of the appeal and mailing a copy to <br />all parties having an interest and that, within 10 days of the date of mailing, <br />any other party may appeal. <br />has 4.0 days to appeal, but if one side appeals, the other side has only ten <br />days after the date of mailing in which to file its appeal. <br />recalled that, notwithstanding the appeal period, he had previously advised the <br />Council that it is desirable to decide whether or not to dismiss the condemna- <br />tion proceeding prior to making the three-fourths payment now demanded by the <br />owner. He added that he had been advised by Mr. Gittleman's attorneys that he <br />is willing to accept the Commissioners' award, despite the appeal. Mr. Crane <br />Bodine, 6141.Arctic Way, representing Arctic Hills homeowners, said that he had <br />not had an opportunity to discuss the possibility of neighborhood participation <br />in paying ic portion of the cost of the land because he had not known how much <br />money would have to be raised. He requested that the matter be continued for 30 <br />days so that residents could meet and get support for raising the approximate <br />$40,000 difference between the $280,000 which the City had agreed to pay and the <br />price required by Mr, Gittleman. Mr. Bodine said that he did not think that the <br />additional cost for the land should be ?aid.only by residents of the area, <br />inasmuch as the retention of the property as open space would benefit the entire <br />City. <br />remarks. In response to a question of Mr. Hyde as to the position of the City if <br />it now drops the condemnation, Xr. Erickson said that the City would be responi. <br />sible for payment of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney, appraisal <br />and engineering fees. <br />made to have the appeal continued an additional 30 days to give residents an <br />opportunity to raise add'itional funds. <br />Bodine that the Council was in error when it did not appeal the Krahl Hill zon- <br />ing decision, Mr. Erickson recalled that his recommendation that the matter not be <br />appeeled was based on the fact that he did not think that an appeal would be suc- <br />cessful and that he would still stand upon that recommendation. Councilman Court- <br />ney recalled that not all members of the Council and the staEf had agreed that <br />the land is actually worth $280,000. Mr. Hyde added that already "Viking Hills is <br />an island surrounded by a lot of open space .... with more green space than almost <br />any other area in the City". He emphasized that the City does not have any addi- <br />tional funds to spend on the acquisition of the property. <br />he was not questioning the judgment of Mr. Hyde or Mr. Erickson but he asked that <br />the record show that he appreciated the efforts made by the City in attempting to <br />acquire Krahl Hill. <br />Larkin to agree that prompt payment need not be made in this case so that he <br />would have time to check further on whether the 10 or the 40 day appeal period <br />applies. <br />the "tine period", but said that he would recommend that Council decide on its <br />action by September 3. Mr. Shaw said that he would feel negatively about pay- <br />ing the three-quarters of the award at this time, and also felt "hard pushed" to <br />go up to $280,000. <br />Council might have to pay over $280,000 for the property. <br />said that Councilman Richards had expressed his similar coilcern to him. Mr. <br />Erickson said that the Council. must make a decision as to what to do if an <br />extension of time cannot be obtained, as well as a decision on what to do if <br />an extension of time is granted. Following considerable discussion, Councilman <br />Courtney offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />Mr.' <br />He clarified that in a condemnation case, each side <br />Mr. Erickson <br />Hr. Richard L. Seaberg, 6108 Arctic Way, expressed support of Mr. Bodine's. <br />Mayor Van Valkenburg suggested that a request could be <br />In response to an inference of Mr. <br />Mr. Bodine said that <br />Mr. Erickson suggested that it might be possible to get M-r. <br />He emphasized the two separate problems of the "appeal period" and of. <br />Councilmen Shaw and Courtney expressed concern that the <br />Mayor Van Valkenburg <br />ESSOLUTION <br />BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby authorize the City Attorney <br />to request the dismissal of the appeal of the Krahl Hill condemnation so that the ..