Laserfiche WebLink
PIINUTES <br />OF THE REGULA3 MEETING OF THE , <br />EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL <br />JANUARY 18, 1982 <br />Answering rollcall were members Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner and Mayor <br />Courtney . <br />MINUTES of December 21 and 30, 1981, were approved as submitted by motion of <br />Member Schmidt, seconded by Member Turner. <br />Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney <br />Nays: None <br />Motion carried. <br />OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMEEFOR SR-5 SENIOR CITIZEN RESIDENCE (COPPIUNITY <br />DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION) CONTINUED. <br />approved as to form and ordered placed on file. <br />Member Bredesen's motion was seconded by Member Schmidt, continuing the hearing <br />until February 1, 1982. <br />Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney <br />Nays: None <br />Motion carried. <br />Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, <br />As recommended by Mr. Hughes, <br />EfARTHE WOODS HILL ADDITION GRANTED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL. Affidavits of Notice <br />were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. <br />Hughes presented Marthe Woods Hill addition for preliminary approval, advis- <br />ing that this five lot single family dwelling subdivision, generally located <br />North of W. 78th Street and East of Gleason Road, would retain Lot 1 for the <br />existing dwelling on the site. <br />with the subdivision is the need for right-of-way for Marth Court. <br />that this right-of-way was deficient primarily in :he vicinity of Lots 3 and 4, <br />where a 33 foot wide right-of-way had been dedicated previously for Marth Court. <br />This right-of-way, he explained is separated from ths subject property by a <br />five foot wide strip of private property, so that, not only the five foot strip, <br />but also an additional ten foot wide strip East of the existicg right-of-way <br />would have to be acquired in order to provide a minimum 50 foot right-of-way. <br />Mr. Hughes said that attempts to negotiate a right-of-way acquisition over the <br />past fet7 months have been unsuccessful and that the proponent is now requesting <br />Chat the subdivision be referred to the Council for a decision on using the <br />City's power of eminent domain to acquire the right-of-way. <br />mended approval of the plat, subject to the following conditions: 1) The pro- <br />ponent must enter into a Developer's Agreement and petition the Council for <br />curb and gutter, permanent street surfacing, sanitary sexer, and watermain (all <br />to be located <br />by the City Council prior to, or concurrent with, final plat approval; <br />33 foot wide right-of-way for Marth Court located in the proximity of Lots 3 <br />and 4 must be acquired prior to final plat approval and that the right-of-way <br />must include the five foot strip presently separating the subject property <br />from Marth Court; 3) The proponent must dedicate a two foot wide strip of <br />right-of-way along the East line of the subject property in order to increase <br />the Marth Court right-of-way to 50 feet, with additional right-of-way for the <br />cul-de-sac to be provided; 4) Lot line easements for sewer and water must be <br />dedicated as needed; A proposed grading plan must be submitted; and 6) <br />Receipt by the City of a subdivision dedication. Mr. James Van Valkenburg, at- <br />torney for the proponent, said that his client had been trying to work with Mr. <br />Roger Evanson, owner of the five foot strip, but that they had been unable to <br />arrive at an agreement on the cost of the strip. He advised that the proponent <br />would dedicate the two foot strip, along with sewer and water easements, to the <br />City. Mr. Evanson said that he had offered to sell the five foot strip, predi- <br />cated on the cost of improvements that would accrue to the property, and that <br />his price had not been out of line. He questioned the grading of the proposed <br />road from a point of safety, and advised also that he had just spent over $3,000 <br />on a new well. Mr. Evanson said that the improvements proposed are,not neces- <br />sary except for the development of the property and that there has been very <br />little negotiation on the part of the developer. Mr. Evanson recalled that, <br />when he petitioned for the improvements about five years ago, neighbors objected <br />and that he did not now want to pay twice the cost just for the benefic of the <br />developer. In response to a question of Member Richards, Elr. Hughes said that <br />abutting property owners could be assessed on a front foot basis for the street <br />improvements and €or a connection charge for other improvements. <br />Longtin, 5828 W. 78th St., objected to the possibility of being assessed for the <br />cost of any improvements necessary for the development of the plat. <br />he had already been assessed for over $8,000 for improvements and that the new <br />improvenients would only benefit the developer. Mr , Van Vallcenburg pointed out <br />Mr. <br />He explained that the major problem associated <br />He noted .. <br />Mr. Hughes recom- <br />I <br />in the Marth Court right-of-way). which work must be authorized <br />2) The <br />5) <br />>IT. Jeffrey <br />He said that