Laserfiche WebLink
30 MINUTES <br />OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE <br />EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL <br />NOVEMBER 12, 1985 -. <br />!T&?Edina City Council held a closed meeting on November 12, 1985, at 4:45 p.m. <br />regarding the litigation against the Homart Development Company and the City <br />of Bloomington. <br />-. <br />Present were Members Kelly, Richards, Turner and Courtney. Also present were <br />Kenneth Rosland, Gordon Hughes, Fran Hoffman, Ceil Smith, Marcella Daehn and <br />Attorney Thomas Erickson. <br />The Council reviewed and discussed a draft of a proposed settlement of the <br />lawsuit and directed Mr. Erickson to contact the defendants regarding several <br />issues. <br />discussed by the Council. <br />No formal action was taken by the Council and no other business was <br />.. <br />City Clerk <br />MINUTES <br />OF THE SPECIAL 3EETING OF THE <br />EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD NOVEMBER 13, 1985 <br />The Edina City Council met in special session on November 13, 1985, at 4 p.m. <br />in the offices of Mr. Frederick S. Richards, at 4344 IDS Tower, Minneaspolis, <br />Minnesota. Council Members in attendance were Peggy Kelly, Fred Richards, : <br />Leslie Turner and C. Wayne Courtney. <br />Fran Hoffman, Becky Comstock from Dorsey & Whitney, and Thomas Erickson, City <br />Attorney, also from Dorsey & Whitney. <br />Also in attendance were Kenneth Rosland, <br />The meeting was called to discuss possible settlement of the lawsuit against <br />Homart and of the Metropolitan Significance Review instituted by Edina in <br />connection with the Homart Project. <br />Thomas Erickson to present the current status of settlement negotiations. <br />Mr. Erickson advised as follows: <br />substantially the same as now negotiated except for the following changes: <br />I The Mayor opened the meeting and then asked <br />1. The agreement presented to the City Council on November 12, 1985 was <br />(a) Paragraph 4 has been changed to provide that Homart's share of <br />of the cost of the turn lane shall not exceed $40,000 and that the con- <br />struction of the turn lane shall include signalization. <br />In Paragraph 9 the square footage in the first three Phases is <br />now stated to be "gross floor area." <br />Paragraph 11 relative to the 1-494 corridor study to be under- <br />taken by the Metropolitan Council now also privides that the study "shall <br />include, among other aspects, transportation improvements, mass transit <br />usage and land useage." <br />changes in the language of the agreement. <br />2. There were three open issues: (1) to date Edina has insisted that the <br />agreement relative to the restriction on construction of Phase IV (restricted <br />by the vehicle trips) should be of record, and thereby give notice of owners of <br />Phase IV. As an alternate, Edina has <br />suggested that Bloomington adopy a zoning and/or land use ordinance implementing <br />the provisions of the Settlement Agreement; that Bloomington also agree to give <br />notice to Edina of development plans for the Homart site and not to approve any <br />development plan or issue building permits, except for Phase I, until the <br />ordinance is effective. <br />this concept and that Floyd Olson, city attorney, had approved the concept, <br />although neither had seen the exact language that we proposed. <br />asked for some direction of Council as to whether they would accept the zoning <br />ordinance and remove any requirement that the agreements with Homart be recorded. <br />The Settlement Agreement presently requires that Bloomington initiate <br />the traffic study by notice to Metropolitan Council, and Metropolitan Council <br />would then see to the selection of a group of experts who would prepare criteria, <br />and those criteria would be used to complete the traffic study after Phases I, I1 <br />and 111 were complete and occupied; on the basis of that study the Metropolitan <br />Council would determine the size of Phase IV. Homart wants to put a time frame <br />of 120 days or 180 days (the 180-day figure being our number) on this process <br />so that Homart will be able to plan. <br />objection to the 180 or the 120 days so long as the parties to the Agreement <br />retain their rights and obligations notwithstanding failure to comply with that <br />deadline. <br />(b) <br />(c) <br />(d) There are also a number of other insignificant nonsubstantive <br />Homart has objected to that recording. <br />Peter Coyle has advised us that Homart had approved <br />Mr. Erickson <br />3. <br />We advised the Council that we had no