Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19851113_special30 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL NOVEMBER 12, 1985 -. !T&?Edina City Council held a closed meeting on November 12, 1985, at 4:45 p.m. regarding the litigation against the Homart Development Company and the City of Bloomington. -. Present were Members Kelly, Richards, Turner and Courtney. Also present were Kenneth Rosland, Gordon Hughes, Fran Hoffman, Ceil Smith, Marcella Daehn and Attorney Thomas Erickson. The Council reviewed and discussed a draft of a proposed settlement of the lawsuit and directed Mr. Erickson to contact the defendants regarding several issues. discussed by the Council. No formal action was taken by the Council and no other business was .. City Clerk MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL 3EETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD NOVEMBER 13, 1985 The Edina City Council met in special session on November 13, 1985, at 4 p.m. in the offices of Mr. Frederick S. Richards, at 4344 IDS Tower, Minneaspolis, Minnesota. Council Members in attendance were Peggy Kelly, Fred Richards, : Leslie Turner and C. Wayne Courtney. Fran Hoffman, Becky Comstock from Dorsey & Whitney, and Thomas Erickson, City Attorney, also from Dorsey & Whitney. Also in attendance were Kenneth Rosland, The meeting was called to discuss possible settlement of the lawsuit against Homart and of the Metropolitan Significance Review instituted by Edina in connection with the Homart Project. Thomas Erickson to present the current status of settlement negotiations. Mr. Erickson advised as follows: substantially the same as now negotiated except for the following changes: I The Mayor opened the meeting and then asked 1. The agreement presented to the City Council on November 12, 1985 was (a) Paragraph 4 has been changed to provide that Homart's share of of the cost of the turn lane shall not exceed $40,000 and that the con- struction of the turn lane shall include signalization. In Paragraph 9 the square footage in the first three Phases is now stated to be "gross floor area." Paragraph 11 relative to the 1-494 corridor study to be under- taken by the Metropolitan Council now also privides that the study "shall include, among other aspects, transportation improvements, mass transit usage and land useage." changes in the language of the agreement. 2. There were three open issues: (1) to date Edina has insisted that the agreement relative to the restriction on construction of Phase IV (restricted by the vehicle trips) should be of record, and thereby give notice of owners of Phase IV. As an alternate, Edina has suggested that Bloomington adopy a zoning and/or land use ordinance implementing the provisions of the Settlement Agreement; that Bloomington also agree to give notice to Edina of development plans for the Homart site and not to approve any development plan or issue building permits, except for Phase I, until the ordinance is effective. this concept and that Floyd Olson, city attorney, had approved the concept, although neither had seen the exact language that we proposed. asked for some direction of Council as to whether they would accept the zoning ordinance and remove any requirement that the agreements with Homart be recorded. The Settlement Agreement presently requires that Bloomington initiate the traffic study by notice to Metropolitan Council, and Metropolitan Council would then see to the selection of a group of experts who would prepare criteria, and those criteria would be used to complete the traffic study after Phases I, I1 and 111 were complete and occupied; on the basis of that study the Metropolitan Council would determine the size of Phase IV. Homart wants to put a time frame of 120 days or 180 days (the 180-day figure being our number) on this process so that Homart will be able to plan. objection to the 180 or the 120 days so long as the parties to the Agreement retain their rights and obligations notwithstanding failure to comply with that deadline. (b) (c) (d) There are also a number of other insignificant nonsubstantive Homart has objected to that recording. Peter Coyle has advised us that Homart had approved Mr. Erickson 3. We advised the Council that we had no 11 / 13 / 85 31 I m a 4. Mr. Erickson advised the City Council that, based upon the direction given by the Council at the November 12 meeting, he asked Homart to pay the City Attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $75,000. Homart had refused. Bloomington to pay any of these costs. a discussion, even if payment of the cost was framed in terms of purchase of the north half of the right-of-way of 77th Street, or especially if such request was framed as a purchase of the right-of-way, would lead to a request on the part of Bloomington for payment by Edina of one-half the cost of 77th Street plus 100% of the cost of the sewer to be installed with that street. Therefore, he thought it best not to raise this issue at this time, but should the issue come up in the future when Bloomington decides to put in the road, Edina can always request that Bloomington pay some part of its costs involved in this matter in exchange for Edina agreeing to take on some part of the cost of construction of the road and/or sewer which in turn could be assessed by Edina against the benefitted property owners (assuming, of course, a Joint Powers Agreement or other activity on the part of Edina is taken in timely fashion so that the asseosment can be made). Mr. Erickson also advised that they had done some research, and the research indicated that Edina was in a favorable position to prevent any road construction by Bloomington which did not include an accommodation of the drainage, either by an open swale or by a pipe. After presentation by Mr. Erickson, the Council Members asked a number of questions and made a number of comments on the Settlement Agreement. There- after motion of was made by Member Turner, and seconded by Member Richards, that (i) the Settlement Agreement presented on November 12, 1985, with the changes mentioned by Mr. Erickson, including the additional nonsubstantive changes negotiated by the attorneys, and including deletion of a recording requirement, and insertion in lieu thereof of the Bloomington ordinance provisions, and the insertion of a 120-day study period for the traffic study, provided that the parties do not lose their rights and obligations should the study take longer than 120 days, be approved, (ii) the City Attorney not seek any repayment of attorneys' fees at this time in connection with the Settlement Agreement, and (iii) the Mayor and Manager are authorized to execute that Agreement with such additional changes and modifications as the Mayor and the Manager may deem appropriate, and the signature of the Mayor and the Manager shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of this Council to the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement as signed. The Mayor then called for the question, and the resolution was adopted 3 to 1, with Members Richards, Turner and Courtney voting aye, and Member Kelly voting nay. There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was there- upon ad j ourned . He advised that He then advised that he had not yet asked the City of He has not done so for fear that such