Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
STREETS AND HWYS_COUNTY RDS_CROSSTOWN HIGHWAY
�� 1 llage of E� na January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council . From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right - of -way. On July 25, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 11 19561 issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of.the long- considered 162nd Street" Cross -town highwayb There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub-divide presently unplatted property within the limits_ of the proposed right-of-way during the past six months A. In, practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or re' commend.approval of the plats: Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give .them all informa- tion'available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy„ During the past six months there have been several important developments,;, full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956. On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955,, field surveys, and conferences with Village; County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. k is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right -of -way) which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right -of -way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division; The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four.mo wing lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France; At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes: At a 250 foot width right- of -waY1 Proposal k would require taking only four or five homes. „ -1- A new design for the grade separation between the Cross -town route and Highway 100, which includes the area between Ryan on the east, Warren on the west, just north of 64th on the south and just north of 62nd on the north, as shown on Proposal 4, requires taking only nine homes, instead of eighteen as planned originally. This means that not more than nineteen and possibly only thirteen homes, would have to be taken to provide a modern high- way of almost two miles in length. Unless the ban on building permits is continued, however, many more homes will be built in the near future which would have to be acquired later when all final arrangements for the proposed highway are completed. This, of course, would make the cost of the project considerably higher. Both the County Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways, State of Minnesota, have approved the alignment shown on Plan 4. The proposed Cross -town route is not a new idea. It was proposed in a report dated November 10, 1949, by the Minneapolis City.Planning Commission, which suggested the need for such a route to connect Trunk Highway 55 on the east and Trunk Highway 100 on the west via the South �ity limits, or 62nd Street. The Minneapolis City Council in 1950 directed the City Engineer to make field surveys, to discuss the need for the route with the County, Airport Commission and Edina and Richfield, and approved the route in principle, On September 301 1955, the Minneapolis City Council authorized the initiation of condemna- tion for the route from Portland Avenue east to 46th Avenue. The Minneapolis City Council has also authorized the withholding of building permits along a portion of the proposed route. This action resulted in a builder going to court to force the issuance of a permit. On December 6, 1955 Judge Carroll, in the case of Ole Hansen vs. City of Minneapolis, continued the. matter until September 28, 1956. It-is believed that the judge felt.the city should not be compelled at this time to issue a building permit which would allow the improvement of property that the city might later condemn and thus put the taxpayers to an extra cost. The case was continued upon condition that if by September 28, the city had 'proceeded with reasonable dispatch and was making progress towards the con- demnation and completion of the project, the writ of mandamus would not issue. It is the hope of at least one chief official for the city that some right -of- way can be purchased in 1956. The County Board highway committee is definitely in favor of expediting the acquisition of the necessary land and starting construction as soon as poss- ible. This committee has authorized the County Highway Engineer to coordinate the activities of the various agencies concerned. The State Highway Department is prepared to take its proper role of acquiring and building the cloverleaf at Highway 100 as soon as it is convinced the County, City, and Villages concerned are serious about the route. The State has alydady ordered work to be done on designing the separation at Trunk High- way 100, and while there may be some minor changes in the final design from that shown on Plan 4, the elongated cloverleaf proposed is generally accept- able, and State officials feel Plan 4 is the most economical and has proper design. W0 As the matter stands now, the route within the limits of Edina would be financed as follows; The Village would be required to buy the right-of-way from where the proposed route intersects Valley View Road west of Highway 100 at Warren Avenue to the point where V lley View Road extended intersects the proposed route between Brookview Avenue and Peacedale Avenue, with the excep- tion of the land within the cloverleaf area at Highway 100. The cloverleaf and land necessary for it would be a State cost. The County, with some State funds, would pay for construction. It is hoped the County would be able to budget at least some of the construction costs in the 1958 budget. If, how- ever, Congress passes a revised and expanded Federal_ program designed to aid urban projects of this type, in connection with the President's request for heavier Federal financing of highways, then the cost to the Village would probably be reduced, as the cost of the necessary land would probably be a participating cost. The above discussion relates primarily to that portion of the proposed high- way from Highway 100 east to Xerxes. The whole program contemplates continu- ing the road to Lake - Minnetonka, and while construction west of Warren Avenue is not likely for at least five years, with practically no building in the proposed right of way at present in the West portion of Edina, efforts should be made to secure this right -of -way as soon as possible and the ban on build- ing should apply to the proposed location throughout Edina. Efforts should be made immediately to have the necessary engineering.done on the balance of the proposed right-of-way west of Warren Avenue. If the project was considered necessary in 1949, by the Minneapolis City Plan Commission, after a thorough study, it is even more necessary now, 7 years later, with the tremendous building developments in the south suburban area, The Metropolitan Sports Stadium, and the Southdale Shopping Center, which probably would not have been built as far south as they are unless there had been a terrific amount of home building in the general area, only intensify the need. There are many advantages to Edina to have a route designed for tomorrowfs traffic crossing the Village from east to west. Such a road would relieve 50th Street, which is already badly crowded, and it would make it possible for Valley View Road, 66th Street and to some extent 70th Street, to'be purely residential streets. It is believed that the number of homes needed for Proposal 4 represents the absolutely minimum that can be taken. On the basis of the above facts, it is therefore recommended that you approve in principle Plan 4 and authorize the continued holding of building permits and subdivision plats within the limits of the proposed right-of-way until October 1, 1956. If you concur, we should then secure as soon as possible accurate estimates on the costs of the land involved and construction costs and work with the County, the City, and the State to expedite final deci- sions, in order that the owners of both homes and vacant property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way may be given definite information within a reasonable time as to whether their property is to be taken and., if it is, how much they can expect to be paid, when they can expect to receive the money, and from whom they will be paid. -54 The undersigned members of the Edina Village Council feel that a clear statement of our.position regarding the so- called "Cross -Town Highway" would be helpful to the citizens of Edina.in order.to dispel rumors and mis- representations that have. come to our attention., With the full understanding that this project is still in the planning -stage we offer the following; 1. As the governing body of the Village we feel it our responsibility to anticipate the present and future needs of our community as intelligently as possible. The rapid growth of population makes it imperative, in our estimation, that a main East -West artery be provided to handle the traffic at some point South of 50th. Street and Interlachen Boulevard. 2..A major cross -town highway has been under consideration by at least one of our neighboring communities since 1939. We recognise that any solution to the problem must. be. a joint ventures since other communities are in- volved we are not suggesting any specific location, but will co- operate vrith the State, the County, and other 'affected communities in agreeing . to whatever location is indicated by an intelligent, scientific survey. To this end -we have passed a resolution asking that State funds be made available foithip survey, We strongly feel that the expenditure of the amount of money that would be required to put through this roadway should be made only after a careful, impartial,-survey.is made. 3. We wish to make it perfectly clear that the Edina Village Council has taken no action - nor,.urged any action - on the question of cross -town highways except'as stated in paragraph.2. It is obvious that no one can discuss intelligently the question of access highways unless some survey is made of the situation. . We make this statement in the interest of harmony and understanding. No one is more anxious that these matters be understood than we-are. J. A. Danens., Trustee Fred S. Child, Trustee Dr. Reuben F. Erickson, Mayor F CArthur C. Bredemen, Jr., Trustee Zvald C. Bark, Clerk. The undersigned members of the Edina Village Council feel that a clear statement of our position regarding the so- called "Cross -Town Highway" would be helpful.to the citizens of Edina in order to dispel rumors and mis- representations that have, come to our attention. With -the full understanding that this project is still in the planning stage wt. offer the followings 1. As the governing body of the Village we feel it our responsibility to anticipate the present and future needs of our community as intelligently as possible. The rapid growth of population makes it imperative, in our estimation, that amain East -Meet artery be provided to handle the traffic at some point south of 50th Street and Interlachen Boulevard. 2. A msjor cross -town highusy has been under consideration by at least one of our neighboring communities since 1939. We recognise that any solution to the problem must be a joint venture. Since cther communities are in- volved we aro not suggesting any specific location, but will co-operate with the State, the County, and other affected communities in agreeing to whatever location is indicated by an intelligent, scientific survey. To this and we have passed a resolution asking that State funds be made available for this survey, We strongly feel that the expenditure of the amount of money that would be, "quired to put through this roadway should be made only after a careful, impartial survey is made. 3. hte wlsh to'make it pej�feetly clear that the Edina Village Council has taken no action - nor urged any action = on the question of cross -town highways except as stated.in paragraph'2. 'It is obvious that no one can discuss intelligently the question of access highways unless some survey is made of the situation. We make this statement in the interest of harmony and understanding. no one is more anxious that these matters be understood than we are. J. A. Danene, Trustee Dr, Reuben F. Erickson, mayor Fred S. Child, Trustee Arthur C. Sredesen, Jr., Trustee Evald C. Hank, Clerk. .1 14-54 The undersigned members of .the .dins Village Council, feel that a clear statement Of our position regarding the so- called "Grose -Town Hiray" would be helpful to the citizens of Edina in order to.dispel rumors and mis- roprosentations that have oomd to our attention. -t4ith the !tall understanding that this project is still in the planning stage we o_fer the followingt 1. As the 'governing body of the Village we feel it our responsibility to- anticipate the present and future needs of our community ss intelligently as possible. The rapid growth of population makes it imperative, in our estimation, that a min oast- West artery be Movided to handle the traffic at same Mint south of 50th Street and Znter].r=chen Boulsvard. 2. A rajor Grass -term highwray has been under eonalderstion by at least one of our neighboring co=uhities since 193 -7. We recognize that any solution to the problem resist be a j-)int venture. Since other com,=111ies are in- volved we aro not suggesting any specific locations but will cooperate with the 3tato, the County, and other affected aombunities in agreeing to whatever location is indicated by an intellipent, scientific surveye xo this end we have passed a resolution asking, that State funds be made available for this survey* We strongly feel that the expenditure of the amount of money that would be rewired to put through this roadway should be made only after a careful, impartial survey is cede. 3. We wish to mako it perfectly clear that the Udine Village Council has taken no action - nor urged any action on the question of cross -to%m highways except as stated in paragraph 2. It is obvious that no one can discuss intelligently the question of access highways unless some survey is made of the eituation. We make this statement in the interest of harmony and understandingo no one is more anxious that these mattero'be understood than we are. J. A. Banns, Trustee Dr. Reuben F. 2rickson, Mayor Fred S. Child, Trustee Arthur,C.. Bredesen, Jr.s Trustee gvald C. Bank, Clerk. The undersigned members of the Edina Village Council feel' that a clear statement of ours position regarding the so- called t "Cross -Town Highway ",would be helpful to.the citizens of Edina in order to dispel rumors and mis- representations that have come to our attention. With the full understanding, that this project is still -in the planning stage we offer the following: 1. As the governing body of the Village we feel.it our responsibility to- anticipate the present and future needs of'our community as intelligently as possible. The rapid growth of` population makes it imperative' in our estimation, that a main East -West artery be provided to handle the traffic at some point south of 50th Street and Interlachen Boulevard. 2.. A major cross -town hiLghway has been under consideration, by at least onetour °neighboring communities since 1939. We recognize that any solution to the problem must be a joint venture. Since other communities are involved we are not suggesting any specific location, but will co- operate with the'State, the County, and other affected communities in agreeing to whatever location is indicated by an intelligent, scientific survey. To this end we have.passed a resolution asking.that State funds be made available for)th'is survey. We strongly feel that the expenditure of the amount of money that would be required to put through this roadway should be made only after a�care,ful, impartial survey is made. bt-e %A //n `, /'/ /j� A J e r . i�2 -:171, December 199 1957 - Mr. L.. P. Pederson® County Engineer. `Hennepin County Highway Department 440 Court House- Minneapolis 15, Minnesota Dear Mr. Pedersons Res 62nd Street Crosstown Highway As an answer to your letter of November 15th, I quote from the minutes of the Edina Village Council Pheeting, held December 9th. ` "HENNEPIN COUNTY ACQUISITION OF RIGHT- OF-WAY•FOR CROSSTOWN HIGHg Y APPROVED,*'* # # * Council was in agreement as to the route, but discussion was had-as to access from the proposed highway to the municipal swimming pool. Fronk's motion, authorizing the Village ! Manager to inform the Hennepin County Highway Department that it is satisfactory to proceed with acquisition of right-of-way-for proposed 62nd Street Crosstown Highway.from Xerxes Avenue to _ Olinger Road, subject,to access satisfactory to the Village from - -� said Highway to the Edina Municipal-Swimming Pool, was seconded by Dickson and carried." We feel sure that the matter of :access to the swimming pool can be worked out without difficulty..-_ Yours'very.truly, Warren C. Hyde _ - Village Manager - 24 �I No. i State of Minnesota h; COUNTY OF EMNNEPIN i I DISTRICT COURT Fourth Judicial District t' Plaintiff_ �. AGAINST Defendant_ SUBPOENA Subpoena No. 2 2 Z 5" 6 STATE OF NUNNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Plaintiff Defendant TO You are hereby commanded, that laying and appear before V at /`�'�� % DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE NO. S ✓T 6fO �'7 _ .Greetings : all and singular your business and excuses, you be in said county and state, on the day of 19, at ' 3 o'clock in the noon, then and there to give evidence in the above titled cause and to bring with you and produce at the time and place aforesaid to be used as WITNESS the Honorable LEVI M. HALL, Judge of the District Court aforesaid, at Minneapolis this day of A. D. 1937F. DISTRICT COURT SEAL Hennepin County, Minn. Philip C. Schmidt Clerk of District Court I W MF D put;F,/ for &�— A (i hone Number S� Jar is* 1956. r . &, kAi ersa»t, ,'*tat* iIl gtt>rsaa, I�u>A `a ^. 'u go Z icsker np City EtWineer, Ylmwapoli•, 3r. A . r.- V9dore", ounty Hioway Ugineer, �, � .1 "�+stfuid, ;err �'ictea►3'iy alilJ*oti They Ifttosed Crosse -Uwn 311 hwasy As yaa Fes, tine #ilUSe of iAr hav rat s,bsan 4m btailc inf; within the rieit of wary ox the projoeW eraser town until. C�otobelr 1 train, tt is vitally Isiwtant. thest we be gim r*tting an of the x�eaCeeioa►a�; a forsaa3tiesss avasilable� "iaa es±tii.xted ► to just what the deal is # eoi ®e to be or, the Mghway, covering such thivWs es epoo- lfic loc4i:o,% .gloverie6r designs wst, asp;artionmeent of oast be- twaft Villa , �rwsutX, i Late► a F'easti+sx� l# and AU der art�ine sat MA U". '�`tti.e 3nfe ation wprtt, be av&ki &blea, m r4 In Upt"ber so that the Yi1:6" COUMil will have an apQe►rtMOnjr to 41s uss: ..the various ous ;"blom i.r lved drier tc the► eto1w 1 doodl es. Met- of the ;ooplo affected by the bane on buLUieejr, permits haeve bow vor�, reasonable but tine is r� short and we waet be Ive►parea'd to Hive full infavastion eomattw in seaptestmber. 161U you rleas give this latter your t a Ap e;onsidte►ratio *nd lot no "m pater fseallMs en what the next eaters we in order to pt ewit a unified ' ' `w* keep gettW rop arts -of where various Peree�m have oa4sated. ? it all or the County Hi hwa F Depaxttatt of exesao ens in tho . Uates Hiowa y. departssent and the repwtas are all at vaarlaxit s on VAwe anythUm stands ss def3ai OUe, 10 for ones can not gaair4g to try to ozpW ts. the bighway unless we care }resent a =ifiod front and everybody kums what tho other one is doing* " have been takizw. most of the heat =A Y ean'e continue to absorb it without iores a wwa tion aid ears* corted action very traaly *ours, r. WAInut 6 -7647 PETERSON AND SULLIVAN, &'•'r INC. 3903 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE • MINNEAPOLIS 10, MINNESOTA REALTORS • BROKERS • MORTGAGES • INSURANCE / February 12 2 95 1 8 Village Manager and Council' Village Hall Edina, Minnesota Dear Sir: I have carefully checked the.possibi]ity of the purchase of, and the ex- tension of the right of way of the "cross— town" highway west of the Normandale Cloverleaf at 63rd Street, and find that there is no money available at the present, and whether it will be in the next few years is doubtful. We own property along the proposed extension route and have been refused building permits, but are still required to pay taxes. Sometime ago a request was made for relief, but none has been forthcoming and prospective buyers of the lots with intent to build have been discouraged by Village personnel, soi all results have been negative. Therefore, we again request a decisions either waiver of payment of t for the years we must hold the property, or be permitted the issuance of bull permits and the Village personnel instructed not to discourage construction activities. The lots effected as to the above are on Valley View Road on the corners of Wyman and Hanson Road, legally described as followss Lot-,ii One (1), Block One (1), Wymants Southview 1st Lot Five (5), Block Two (2), Wyma.nts'Southview 2nd Lot Nine (9), Block Three (3), Wyman's Southview 2nd Above mention of the comment "Village personnel instructed not to dis- courage construction activities", in the event you do authorize a permit, is very important and must be controlled or a permit is of no value as an unfavorable remark is like the "kiss of deathtt. Also' we are the owners of seventeen lots in the Hawkes Lake Addition on Tracy Avenue, legally described as South One —half (S 1,2), Lot Seven (7), and Lot Eight (8), Warden Aeres, through which the new highway No, 169 is proposed to pass® On this property we need a decision, as to either completing the development and construction of homes or the waiver of tae-se May we please have a definite decision? Yours truly, RHP /et Peterson, President or February 12, 1958 Village ' Manager and Council Village Hall Edina, Minnesota -Dear Sir I have carefully checked the possibility of the purchase of, and the ex- tension of the right of way of the "cross- town" highway west of the Normandale Cloverleaf at 63rd Street, and find .that there. is no money available at .the present, and whether it will be in the next few years is doubtful. We own property along the proposed extension route and have been refused building permits, but are still required io-.pay taxes. Sometime ago a request was made for relief, but none has been forthcoming and prospective buyers of the:-,, lots with intent to build have been discouraged by Village personnel, so, all results have been negative.. Therefore, we again request a decision, either waiver of payment of taxes for the years we must hold the property, or be permitted the issuance of building activities. The lots effected as to the above are on Valley View Road on the corners of Wyman.and Hanson Road, legally described as follows: Lot One (1), Block One Lot Five(5)9 Block Two Lot Nine(9), Block Three (1), Wyman's Southview lst (2), Wyman!s Southview 2nd (3) -, Wyman!s Southview 2nd Above mention of the comment "Village personnel instructed not to dis- courage construction activities ", in the event you do authorize a permit, is very important and must be controlled or a permit is of no value as an unfavorable remark is lilac the "kiss of death ". Also-, we are the owners - of seventeen -lots in the Hawkes Lake Addition on Tracy Avenue legally described as South One -half (S 1/2.), Lot Seven (7), and Let Eight (83, Warden Acres, through which the new highway No. 169 is proposed to pass. On this property we need a decision, as to either completing the development and construction of homes or the waiver of taxes. May we please have a definite decision? Yours. truly, RHP.et Roy H. Peterson, President February 12, 1958 Village Manager and Council Village Hall Edina, Minnedata. Dear Sirs 1 have carefully checked the possibility of the purchase of, and the ex- tension of the right of way of the weross -town" highway west of the Normandale Cloverleaf at 63rd Street, and firma that there is no money available at the present, and whether it will be in the next fear years is doubtful, We own property along the proposed extension routs and have been refused building permits, but are still required to pay taxes, Sometime ago a request was made for relief, but none has been forthcoming and prospective buyers of the lots with intent to build have been discouraged by Village personnel, so, all results have been negative, Therefore, we again request a decision, either waiver of payment of taxes for the years we must hold the property, or be E2rmitted' the issuance of b permits and the Village pEsonnei instructed not to discourage construction activities, The lots effdoted as to the above are on Valley View Road on the corners of Wyman and Hanson Road, legally described as follow® J.ot,.; One (l), Block One (1), 1'N- n'® Southvielr l.st Lot Five (5 ), Block Two (2)1, Myman's Southvi.ew 2nd Lot Nine (9), Black Three (3), Y- &man's Southview 2nd Above mention of the comment "Village personnel instructed not to dis- courage construction activities ", in the event you do authorize a permit, is very important and must be controlled or a permit is of no value as an unfavorable remark is Ube the "kiss of death", Also, we are the owners of seventeen lots in the Hawkea Lake Addition on Tracy Avernus legally described as South One -half (S U2)0 Lit Seven (i)s and Lot Eight (85, Warden Acres, through which the new highway No. 169 is proposed to pass, On . thie property we need a decision, as to either comp%ting the development and construction of homes or the waiver of taxes, stay we please have a definite decision? Youro tru3y, RHP/Gt Roy H, Peterson, President .!Py l YaIOY View Rdo , Win* 249 Mirmsots Wino 240 Mitmesotae I vdth to p rotsat against tho planned highway' 1nt#r— char4e ota th ftlt. Lim and 633rd 3troots, Edbw beca us of I* Thaxa savms to be no good roars n to *xpdito Uafisic at USIS paxticular 1sr►tsxs>acti+on when coat athe.r Intersections ore r-lov exlosfs, OT lim. l i L" 3$ bsmlatavad ee s itapw>r t*nt uteri Lavinq .i' d*1ux* intersoct %;n at wo spot bamss pimple, accustom to q,1av r1*aft 411. be an eze wrong ,aid* of the ><osd fox. �An lnitor i turns -3. The oxtts xomy "quired for th* Interchange SAtors,ectia+n could bettor be Wat *iiainatUV bottlenecks in th* Btlt Line wch as +was A91 3xcolsicr l31yd and `kaasidsler crass. 4. Th* fact that an intorr.har4m. can be nsegotfaf;tod vat *r than a Clow r,iW can be a divadv ntsagO . in that. an:xy points to th* cxoss tow highway would haw to to located further fr(A the Inter W tion tit it turns axu mode, at 10"*x SpQWp. 6. The additional housos olimi4stod by t -o i,ntexchmVw represent bath capitsl cost and loss of tox $new*. i'aurs tarnEl* (619"d) l mCAt b. Ks k HIGHWAY DEPART, E V, NT COUNTY OF HENNEPON 440 COURT H O U S E !AT Minneapolis 15, Minnesota L. P. PEDERGON, EP401MINVI a s GgVRVA 6919 - 694F. November' 11P it Mr. Jar7e-. C. -iyd-- MinsFer V_11�a*r-e. of Edina west 50th 'z-rept� Minn P sPolis Ml,inesotP ::ear ear Mr. u,yde: Ae: 02ni Stre,e..t Crosstown Highway For the Village of Edinags Informqtion this department Is now proceeding to acquire right of way for thel 62nd Street Crossto.wri Highway Afrom Xerxes Avenue toward the Interchange with Trunk Highway 100, It Is our plan to first purchase the vacant property along this route and if money is still available we 4111 then p I rob%bly purchase property that has been developed so that we may give th I o s e or I mers ample time for vacating their property. At this time I do no*. know when construction 6peratl.ons can be started but 'if It is agreeable, and I a' assured that there has been no change by the Village Council as tQ the location of said 62nd Street; Crosstown Highway, we will immediately proceed as w- have now selected our appraisers to get an estimated cost of the right of ,My, Would you please Info .me that there has been no change ' In the attitude of the Village Council in regar d to the location of the 62nd Street Crosstown Highway, as up to now we have had only tentativ-1111 approval of this proposed crosstown layout,�' Yours very truly, L, F. Pederson County Engineer LPP:db cc:Commissioner Ainsworth .. ...... .. e Mr. L. P. Zimmerman, Commissioner of Highways, State Highway Department,, St. Paul, Minnesota.. November 229 1957 Re: Proposed Improvement T.H. 100 and Crosstown Dear Mr. Zimmermann This will confirm.the'arrangements made with 'your office for a meeting on Friday, November 29th, at 3 P.M. with members of the Village Council at your office. The Council is anxious to have answoers,to the following quetionss �1. What are•.the-advantages - and disadvantages of the proposed directional flow 'interchange on Highway 100 at the proposed crosstown highway. location? The Council will want estimates on the construction costs of the proposed plan as compared to a ,standard cloverleaf and land acquisition costs for e6ch type. 2. What are the most recent traffic counts-on volume in-this area, and whet is the projected volume on 100 and on the crosstown? What is the capacity of the proposed .directional flow as compared. with a cloverleaf? 3. We would also like.to discuss the overall improvement progrem for Highway .100 through Edina. We have been furnished a copy of preliminary plans prepared . by Orr Engineering Company as of October 4th-. Vie uaould like to know what the Highway' Department' a program is,as far.-6s timing is concerned. .We are.concerned about the treatment of Valley Vier Road on the Orr plan., We think it desirable that this -road be more adequately provided for as.a cross street.- ,4. What-is the programming on improving and relocating Highway 169, particular- ly at its intersection with Highway 100? Actually, there is a very strong.feeling, and rightly so I think, that the 50th Street intersection should receive immediate attention as' the traffic situation at this corner 'is critical noun.. 5."Whe question will undoubtedly be raised as to why it is necessary for 169 to be relocated to the South with the resulting interchange at Eden Avenue and the accompanying high costs when it might be possible - to route 169 from County Road 18 to Trunk Highway 100 over the proposed crosstown route. As you know, the Council was quite concerned about the lack of definite information which was -given at the public hearing on the proposed intersection at the cross - town location and we are anxious that full, information be'evailable for the members of the Council at the forthcoming meeting. We appreciate very much your willingness to confer with us on this matter.. Yours very truly, Warren C. Hyde, Village Manager. WCH&B tele�tilcare WAlnut 7 -8861 VILLAGE OF EDI NA 4801 West 50th Street Edina 24, Minnesota March 6, 1937. Mr. L. P. Zianerman, Chief Engineer, State Highway Department, St. Paul, Minnesota. Dear Mr. `iw.emiui: Ho: Proposed Improvement T.H. No. 100 and its Junction with T. H. No. 169, end. with 62nd_;'reet Crosstown Hi,%hwaya�.Edina, Your 10ttear of November 7, 41936. You will ,recall that on October 19, 19369 1 wrote (copy enclosed) asking for definite information concerning various proposed hiijbway developments in ::dfna, pointing out that it was host difficult for the Village, to continua to seeusaa the cooperation of subdividers and buiiders who were anxious to go ahead with proje cts. in various loca tians where state highway projects were contearplated, unless we could secure positive, definite infori^atson from you as tv ghat is to bar done by your agency. On November 7 you advised G. Orr Engineering Company•s contract called for the coa►- pletion of a Preliminary ';cport on the "'above referenced" highway iap.ovements as of :arch 1, 1937. On Falrrsaz r 2F. I cabled Mr. ieefald of Orr cnginecring Goiypaany and was dismayed to find that, because the highway Department had failed to furni.s:N Ur witil ot- 1,affric infflxa,atior� ", it would be impossible for Orr to give anything definite at this titi -e. On march 4, however, r_r. Wefaid did submit to you and to us as print of a 'v.prcpcsetd" cloverleaf interchange, at the proposed location of the :;rosstown inturbcct:on. The accompanying letter to you frua. �. oie:fala says "we dc. not know w vv a her the, cloverleaf type is justified or whether a diacond type interchange: would suffice." In other words,, we still don't know what is going to bed done! In s letter dated iebruary 22, 19'33 which i.ncid6nta!ly is our fl- st r- quest frig any information from Pro aefald, he asked for considerable InforL :action "in order to facilitate the design of this project". he also stated "it is our intent insofar as consistent with good engineering practice to arrive at a final design which will take Into consideration the requirements of the local area se ved by T.H. 100 and its intersection with T.'19 169. Today? Mr. Phelps from leefald's office called, and madd arranyo;Aents to secure the in- fornation needed, not only for they 100-169 intersection but also for tha Crosstown in- tersection and for service drives the .length of 100 through .i,'dina. I ceztalnly a1f;, greatly disappointed at the length of time it has taken to ;make such little progress and for just a start to be made on getting the necessary data.. When will we get them? Unless we some ,absolute °�"" VA do-get guarantee of definite, final answers soon, we cannot expect to continue to secure the cooperation cf 1 the Planning Commission, the Council, and the property owners involved in holding up development of the land somebody thinks might be needed for as proposed highway project. IB Yours very truly, Warren C. Hyde, Village Manager. iC- 7UwN APPROXIMATE TIMING FOR OBTAINING THE RIGHT -OF =WAY FOR THE "DIRECTIONAL FLOW INTERCHANGE" BETWEEN WEST 61ST STREET AND WEST 65TH STREET ON HIGHWAY NO. 100 August 15, 1957 - Started work in the State Highway Right- of -Way Division. It will take 60 days to search titles, - do the field work, check with the County, and get to the Attorney General for filing. October 15, 1957 - Petition for Condemnation should go to the Attorney General. Attorney General has 15 days to review petition. November 1, 1957 - Petition should be ready to file with Court. Hearing date is set for 60 days after filing which is about January 1, 1958. January 1, 1958 - Hearing date and appraisers appointed. Appraisers have 90 days to do their work. April 1, 1958 - Appraisers should be completed with their work. There are 40 days in which to file appeal, or to May 15th. May 15, 1958 - Payments should be forthcoming after,May 15, 1958 POSSIBLE NOTIFICATION OF VACATIONS December 1, 1958 - Possible date f for vacations so that homes could be removed during the winter and construction started in 1959 if programmed that way. 8/16/57 UIRSOn enu MLA Il 1 9 O 1 w a s H A T T O W E R M I N N E A P O L I S , M I N N. F E. 2- 2 5 8 1 September 9, 1957 Edina Village Council 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota ,i Gentlemen: i I.would like to register a criticism and objection to the 62nd Street crossover as suggested by.the Orr Engineering Company. This crossover as recommended would involve four bridges instead of one and-nearly doubles the amount of paving besides requiring a tremendously greater land acquisition. I can find no objection to the standard cloverleaf with which ._every traveler is, completely familiar because of its use in..every part of the United States. It.would be most confusing for the motorist to pass a number of standard cloverleaves on Highway 100 and then encounter the Orr brainchild. 4� The village needs parks and schools far-more than.costly.experi- mental intersections. I i Yours very truly,. i t _Xlb'63Fe 0. Larsin AOL :mw s f r, I � / s , i Ole t �l (.tob =T - IM! yeas CGZ ouP -- -- -- - -fthld oY Duct smc,#* I . I ft.- 4e .Of -Ar Adv�lmw ,Nor 4661 • `% 04.0., 1T I.Mor to% ecT1o#4 , PLAId OV Glick lincle• -.STA149abe 4sm*VC&b"rw C 1 a04 of 111.1 ble AS 2 al fill i Mr. Warren C. Hyde Village Manager Village of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina 24, Minnesota Dear Sir: STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 1246 UNIVERSITY AVENUE ST. PAUL 4 August 16, 1957 X Tow /"J Re :;S.P. 2733 (100 =130)-. Hennepin County Interchange. T.H. 100 and 63rd,Street We have your letter of August 12th concerning the interchange on T.H. No. 100 and 63rd Street. The questions raised in your letter are answered as follows: 1. It can be assumed that this is the final.plan. 2. The plan has been officially approved by the Commissioner of Highways. 30 It can be assumed that all'of the properties within the limits of the right of way will be acquired altho it is possible, in some cases where only a minor portion of the property is acquireds that the homes themselves may not be. This can best'be determined at the time of the appraisal and discussion of the situation between the home owner and our right of :way.people. 40 We would suggest that the layout be discussed with your Village Council at this time so that if there Are amy objections to it they may come'to our attention in the immediate future. 5• The State proposes to begin the acquisition of right of way in the relatively near fixture. Lastly, you are at liberty to discuss the proposed design with any Persons who may inquire as to the status of the project. If there are axq further questions concerning this matter -we will be pleased to hear from you. Yours very truly D TMEATT 0 1 AYS Jo H. Swaaberg' JHSAC Chie neer Council Wisely Questions Expensive Interchange Edina's village trustees deserve ed by engineers to lye "about one - the thanks of taxpayers all third more. ". over the state for their question- Sonic people believe a type of ing attitude regarding •a new interchange .different- from that type of "directional flow" inter- to which motorists are accustom - section on Normandale Road ed will cause more traffic snarls near 63rd St. than the old type of "cloverleaf "' The state highway department even if the new type theoretical - has asked the Edina council V) ly appears more efficient. This approve plans for the new type would result from the confusion of traffic interchange. The coun- of motorists who find the usua cil has adopted its questioning driving practices around the "elo attitude because the new type in- verleaves" they've used in th tersection will require more land, past would get them into th , displace more homes and cost wrong lane on the new type. more money that the 'Vo- Most important consideration verleaf" type so familiar to Min- from the council's standpoint . nesotans. however, are additional cost and If a "crosstown' . highway is displacement of additional famil to be built, then some sort of lies. Althou;ih the project is to, traffic interchange will be neces- cost Edina taxpayers nothing di- sary. But the council has wisely rectly (it's a county and state questioned the advisability of project), Edina's trustees de- adopting a new type of inter- serve commendation for thinking change when the cost is expect- about the welfare of the iaxpay- ers of the state as.a whole. If more goN-erning bodies would adopt a questioning attitude to- ward the plans of engineers and other experts understandably ambitious for recognition in their field, much wasted tax money co wiltom_mees._be Perhaps, too, in the light of freeway plans and plans for building feeder.. streets to the freeways, the whole crosstown project should be reconsidered. There's just a- bare possibility that adequate traffic engineering on existing streets might elimi- nate need for the "crosstown" and save taxpayers millions of dollars. &4 /S One of the things most neede in Minnesota is a stronger de sire among government official to save tax money at every love of government. t to carry Presiding over the festivities weiTthe young charmers shown above, from left to I Mohawks right: Karen Anderson, Marilee Huser, Barbara Pence, Judy Beale and Susan Chaney. for details History. Of State rban Graphic" Story," an interesting, edu- tate, starts this week on the ;ad "Suburban Graphic." Two he second on an inside page) pear each week for 48 weeks. e and file these illustrated covery of the source of the t of old Fort Sneiling, Indian dustry and highways and es. sketch of the Nort ar E -M High PTA Opens Year With Parents-G. o -To- Classes Night Ten minute bells will signal ever presented at the PTA. It change of classes for parents L4. will be a Pa-'ents-Go-To-Ch_i- the first High school PTA on dren's classes night. + Thursday, October 17th at 7:30 Students will bring copies of p.m. their schedules home during the The evening is to be a repeat week; additional copies will be of the most popular program available at school. This plan af- Morningside Open House, PTA Meeting Tonight At School An open- house and PTA meet- ing at Morningside school is scheduled 'this evening beginning fords the parents an opportunity to meet everyone of his children's teachers, and get a resume of what the course will entail. During Home Room period, a discussion of the Teen Age Code will take place. Parents here will find comforting reinforcement in their decisions regarding hours and priviledges accorded their sons and daughters. Starting tomorrow,_ students_ Federal 8 -4706 ORR ENGINEERING COMPANY INCORPORATED HIGHWAY CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1104 CURRIE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS 3, MINN. May 24, 1957 Mr. Warren Hyde Village Manager Village of Edina Edina, Minnesota Re: Improvement of T.H. 100 through Edina S.P. 2733 & 2745 Dear Mr. Hyde: The tentative layout of the proposed improvement through the Village of Edina was completed Friday, May 24, 1957. The Minnesota Department of Highways requested that the layouts be sent to their office for review before submission to the Village of Edina for their consideration. The layouts were complete except for an alternate diamond type interchange at the intersection of the Crosstown Highway. I.t is expected that this alternate layout will be completed in the next few days. It is hoped that all of these layouts will be furnished you in the very near future. Yours very truly, ORR ENGINEERING CO., INC. Eg 1 Wefald Chief Engineer EW /bk ORR ENGINEERING COMPANY Incorporated HIGHWAY CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1104 CURRIE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS 3, MINN. March 4, 1957 Mr. L. P. Zimmerman Chief Engineer State of Minnesota Department of Highways 1446 University Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota Rot Traffic Interchange at 63rd Street T.B. 100 in Edina S.P. 2733 & 2746 Comm. No. 856200 Dear Mr. Zimmerman: Attached herewith are six prints of proposed cloverleaf interchange at the above location. The attached layout has been revised to conform with present Minnesota Department of Highways design guides. You will recall that about a year ago the location of this interchange was a problem for Edina due to residential developments adjacent to this location. This layout is being furnished for the purpose of indicating the amount of right of way required if a cloverleaf interchange is to be constructed. We do not have the traffic information at this location, therefore, we do not know whether the,cloverleaf type is justified or whether a diamond type interchange would suffice. Mr. Warren Hyde, Village Manager of Edina, called February 289 1957, and requested information concerning the layout. A copy of this layout and letter are being forwarded to Der. Hyde. This layout is being furnished at this time for the purpose of indicating the minimum amount of property required in connection with this layout. Mr. L. P. Zimmerman -2- March 46 1957 It'tappears that a cloverleaf interchange at this location may be ado, - quate to handle present and future traffic and, therefore, would form the basis for making a decision as to the amount of right of way required. If, after final plane have been started and actual construction limits are determined,,it is very possible that little.or no additional right of way would be required unless a radical change is recommended by other agencies. Yours very truly, ORR ENGINEERING COMPANY; INC. Egli Wefald Chief Engineer EW/bk te� WAInut 7 -8861 Mr. L. P. Zimmerman_, Chief Engineer, State Highway Department, St. Paul, Minnesota. Dear Mr. Zimmerman& VILLAGE OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina 241 Minnesota . March 6, 19570 Rea Proposed Improvement T.H. No. 100 and its Junction with T. H. No. 169, and with 62nd Street Crosstown Highway, Edina. Your letter of November 7, 1956. You will recall that on -October 14, 19.56, I emote (copy enclosed) asking for definite information concerning various proposed highway developments in Edina, pointing out that it was most difficult for the Village to continue to secure the cooperation of subdividers and builders who were anxious to go ahead with projects in various loca- tions where state highway projects were contemplated, unless we could secure positive,• definite information from ycu as to what is to be done by your agency. On November 7 you advised G. €R. Orr Engineering Company *s contract called for the com- pletion of a Prelininary Report, ooh the "above referenced" highway improvements as of March 1, 1957. On February 2E, I called Mx. €4?efald of Orr Engineering Company and was dismayed to find that, because the Highway Department had failed to furnish Orr with "traffic information ", it would be impossible for Orr to give anything definite at this time. On garch 49, however, Wefald did submit to you and to us a print of a "proposed" cloverleaf interchange at the proposed location of the Crosstown intersection. The accompanying letter to you from izr. Wefald says "we do not know whether the cloverleaf type is Justified or whether a diamond type interchange would suffice." In other words, we still don't know what is going.to be done! In a letter dated February 22, 3957, which incidentally is our first request for any information from Kr. Nefald, he asked for considerable information "in order to facilitate the design of this project". He also stated "it is our intent insofar as consistent with good engineering practice to arrive at a final design wflich +gill take into consideration the requirements of the local area served by T.H. ,100 and its intersection with T.H. 169. Today, Ur. Phelps from Wefald-Is office called, and made arrangements to secure the in- formation needed, not only for the 103 -169 intersection but also for the Crosstown in- tersection and for service drives tha length of 100 through .Edina. I certainly am greatly disappointed at the length of time it has taken to ;crake such little progress and for Just a start to be made on getting the.necessary data. • +••+ a a+ioncsn WAS uic5' roulems immeaiatel . When will.we get them? Urless'we do get some absolute guarantee of definite, final answers soon, we cannot expect to continue to secure the cooperation of i the Planning Commission, the Council, and the property owners involved in holding up development. of the land somebody thinks might be needed for a proposed highway project. Yours very truly, isB Warren C. Hyde, Village [Manager. l STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 1246 UNIVERSITY AVENUE ST. PAUL 4 November 7, 1956 Mr. Warren C. Hyde Village Manager Village of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina 24, Minnesota Dear Mr. Ftiyde: Re: Proposed Improvement T.H. Fo. 100 and its junction with T.H. Y ;. 169 in Edina Your letter of October 19, 1956 Please be advised that the above referenced highway improve- ments are in the process of being designed by the consulting firm of G. M. Orr Engineering Company and that their contract calls for the completion of the Preliminary Report March 11, 1957. We have asked the consultant to give us the information necessary for making determination of right of way needs on both the junction of T.H. Ros. 169 and 100 portion of the plan and the proposed crossing of T.H.'"Yo`. 1.00 and the cross —town highway at as early a date as possible. Upon receiving this information we will be very happy to submit it to you for your tentative approval and at that time discuss the feasibility of entering into negotiations for the,purchase of necessary right,of way as soon as possible thereafter. Until we have the above definite information before us it is impossible to proceed as suggested in your October 19th letter. %Te, of course, are as anxious as you are to consummate the purchase of right of way in the interest of the saving of costs and will do everything possible to hurry it. Yours very truly DEPARTMENT OF HIGM ?AYS �— P - erman LPZ /EC ngineer &lef4&m WAInut 7 -8861 R-r. „ P. Zinnerwo Chief EmInser,_ States .Bay Leapintmnts St. FUI, larzeaoia. Bur Mr. Ziunroant VILLAGE OF EDI NA 4801 West 50th Street Edina 24, Minnesota eet giber 19, 1956. $dbjoct n Proposed 6W Sunset Crosatewn Highway* U.S. HlemW 169 State AI&W 100. For the past yew and a halt, the Village of FAIna hue been atterl#Aag to be fully cooperative with the various ate. teemed 40n the matter of the proposed 62nd Street Craestown HighW. The Viilago Council autborised tho v1tW of per milts for AU now building within the Units of the proposed right of way until. October 1, 1956• decently, btwever, the 0minall eked that the V11 was not in a Position to Par the ameulnt proposed by the RearA#ft Co=ty HidiwaV Department that would be needed to acgalre vacant property smd that the goad wan net of suMasnt benefit to PAY 10=1 traffic within FAIna to warrant such an emyeadltwe by EdIm. Conesquontly, the 'ban on building pe rvi is expired Cataber:' 1. From time to time we have bow advised that the State 1di*way Department would ;ay for an land within the limits of the intsrchange within. H4#nW 100 and the pro,-osed route* I am writ3nG at this tins to ascertain mhother or sot you are in a position to state acquiring the property .needed Jbr. the interchange. if you em advise me in the af"firsaa- bent, 2 em sure the Council would give favorable .rormidwation to *=U=Ing to withhold Ong ge ndtra in this particular 2cicatton for a reRamlable perliod tat time to sium the Mg y Department to easko the necessary arrangements with the, steers of the land Involvede Alms, in vier of the m:y problem involved concerning State Hl* way y 100 wd U-'3- Sigb w&T 169 through Bdlm, the =tubers of the V13.1aigo Council hmm asked that I request from im an appointmat at which time the responsible authorities of the Highway DepLrt- sent could give, us cow definito ide m concerning the &Umlng natterv-1 1- The proposed program lbir future iaapMveme nt of S19hVQY 169 ftV01 RigbW 100 r. Vii- The futures jmpmyamWA of Highway 100 with regard to Installation of service driven where, they 4o sot nov e 4st and the program fir Installation. of aver passes or traffic interchanges in the vicialtg of 50th Street,, Eden. Avenue, ,70th Street and they Intersection with the proposed e�sstom route at armcat- $wtely 62nd ft . All of the members of the Council. end I are filly cognizant of the mmW uncertainties in the highwaF design problm but in a rapidly developing co> omity it is essential that we Base as specifically as poeeibis has, when and wbere. the Blow' Department is going to do moor work in our coxmvdty. its bavea been'attealpting to cooperate with the ply of the departnent as best we ]mow ther4 but in the absence of finel answers it is, of course, impossible lee for us to act lntellUest y In co=oction with requests Jbr rezoning and proceed pUttings. Mleae WAlnut 7 -8861 Krr. L, Pw ZIUMUMMs Chief ��eeer, State Auway Dsputmwt j, St, pa04 fiats* Dear Er. ZIMM tMana VILLAGE OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina 24, Minnesota cotobeer 19s 19566 Sub mts 'Psvpoeeed 62ad Street Croastwn 33 ,° iv3y # J.S. iI ►y u9s, State uldh w 100. For the past year and a h&Xts aX=d= Al,Ys the TUUge of Edim has been attempting to be thUy cooperative with the vzulous age=U6 conMrwd mn the Wttsr Of the, Popos d 62nd Street Crosstown may. The Vi2lsge Cecil autboAz d the of permits for all new building eritbin the hits. of the proposed t Of w47 until Offer 1, 19550 the ;:• fR fl r rma. . by 9 s W1 Y) i '♦ 3 Ult#raW Depalment that s f i be s ..., i Lto M! ...'! .n such an cMenditum 1'l i ! !a qL. a f..:.iR on rym time to t1m sae have 'toes adviase& that the State Hi*wa3r DsPtte*Rt woiild jai' for all land idthins the 31i is of the Vithin ff.1*wV 100 and the proposed route, 1 am Ming at this tim to ,scan reihethor mr not 7019 are In a paaition to start acquirIng the -Frvpmrty needed Jbr tone Interthaaye. it Ie can adiho w in the afl - tiv es t am au* the Co=dl vw1d give favvra le amm dserstion to cafltinuinag to withhold bulkily; peralts in tip . parUvaUr 29eation for a reasonable peed of time to ailaw the fgtarag Oeprtment to ewe the new alrraMements vith the ova of the, land in lved. • Also, in view of the mfr prob2am involved conceraUg state wag U0.and 13.3. ffiab- r 169 thrazclh BUM,, the M.01bUs of the P121W Council harm asked that 3 r*q=A bm geu an appointaot at uhich tins they rveo to ;thari'tims of the Highway Dtrrpa - sent vadd dine use some. defirlte ideas c+oncermUW the ib1UwUg fiatterat 1- The proposed program for &two UVowmit of Higbway 10 ffto HlEbwav 100 SMY, a- Th* futum imp vemeat of Uighway 1W with regard to Installation of service drives Vtsm they do not =w exist w d they prgpm fbr iutad.latinm of ovW passes or traffic Intercha In the vleir4ty of 50th Street, 'den Avenues 70th Street and the IntasmUon i tt the ympumd crosetwn route at a PAmn- 104tely 62nd Street. All of the mwbers of the Ooermoll and I we aRu ly cogazant of tbo =V uncertainties In the higbwW deeigp prebImm but in a rapidly deve oydag comadty it Is essential that we knm as sTecilloa ].yr as Visible heats when and who" the Sigbwaey Departent 19 god to coo m jor work In our cow ty►. , t ,'$ have been attellptI09 to oaoperats fol3y rith the plans of the department an best we know the1% but in the abse wo of fival amwwo it is, of ewane, impossible for im to act Intelligently In Connection vM requests tb+ rem and pvimed plattingo. _ &*A4"e WAInut 7 -8861 VILLAGE OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina 24, Minnesota Oftaber 19, 1956. Cldei�' a�;a�r, FLat�r �p�s St. Pw,216 Y[ ;inrt a atz. su►jeatt PropoW 62nd: Start Crm HI&Imyt U.S. Blewsw lom state mgbmy 100. Tw the pest yow, and ae half,, al. the VLJUgeaf 30m has been atteogting to be fitter empa lve, with tha various agentimm rcneern*d is the matter of the Vapos" 62W,Strost Craatstmn. Vim Ca=tll as tUrlU" the withbWAlng of pwidto for #11 um bup dIM witMa ttr Units of the pavpaaeed rigtat of way m*U October 10 1956. fly, boa~, the mil dftWed that the VMago was In as p ultion to ply the amunt pvl=sd by the Hennepin Caunty Ughwaq OepWUmict that mould be needed to acqmim vacant property sad that the award vim not of sufficist* bemf`it.'t* tamffft wit ad" to wavant such an by BdInke the Un 4m Widing "mite expired CeUbw 1. From tbw to t1mm we have bow add that they State may Dolt wmaE per ftr ate. land rlthin the Livits of the imtercha+t p witbin air 10 an* the p-ro pmed sure. I as wit ing at tPds t is ats� vbiether or ym are in a posit ► to start saquiring the may' neededAbr th* kAerdbmgs4mL If 3mn can advise so In the affIrmso- tftv�p I ate ware, the C+a ndl would Hiw fa vaarablle c omidwation to oontlmdng to wltb btilldlag paaadta In th2s pmjAzaUr lagatim for a reasonable parlod of tines to *w the 18fthWay OMpartWAnt to make tba, noossmy aarramgements adth Um 4vners of the land la�ncalred. Also, in vUw of the ttzy pz%h2m Involved cones StAto Hidwaql 300 and U.S. H3Sk- hb9 throaSh Mi -p t * moberx of the Village Co =31 have t ked tbat• 1 request f vn Im an at mbich tilts the reopmoMia a utbaltiee of the Hi*'�' ft - aaent 000m give sae definite Idom concerning the ft41aw31S oatteres I- The Proposed wow= fcr #ia we 3 A of Memaw 269 f m Wlbw&y 2W y* 2• Mm f°atme In -- of 8Sghway 1.00 with regard to InAaUa►tior of service &Ivw t#hw a they do not now OxWt cmd the Program for I -- W,latt n of came pmsas or tmMe Intambaups In the 41elyfty of .5 areft, darn Am m, 70th St4met and the IntersecUon id'th tree cresstaft mate at ate. IW*41Y 62nd Strset. AU of the, =mbm of the Caundl and I acre fUly cogrdsmint of tree mW eznoertafMlos In the h1ghvV des but In.. a rapidly dpraio;dze ammmilty it is aeaai Mol that tine knor as ayscUitally as possible hm, Ifimn and vbo" the Hiahv&7 0 ep5art=Mt U god to tits majorL vrkr in one qty.- We haire► boft &tt+a WAg to atmMate fun r with the p2ams of the depal tment as best we knm theme but In the aabeuertasae of fIMI ammWe It, isle of cva so's Impowble for ua to amt intauger*47 in comectl an um retgnsts for ftsm&W and paper p tt •° t. . 2iaterman — PM* 2 30-1946 When +ftld it be vwvoAUmt for you' to most with reprres*A&ti"v of F41mv Pt Alch tim you could giwd us the itformsti on, noodod by usl? Vary truly yours, WauTon C. des VilUge Monager. WCHIB &,&Alcoa WAInut 7 -8861 Mi. L. P.. Zimmerman, Chief Erg3neer, State Highway Deparnt, St: Faul, Kinnesota. Dead Mr. Z9 n: VILLAGE OF EDI NA 4801 West 50th Street Edina 241 Minnesota October 19, 1956. Subjects Proposed 62nd Street Crosstown Hi ghuay, U.S. HigHwaq 169., State Highway 100. For the past year and a halt, approximately, they Village of Edim has been attempting to be hilly cooperative faith the various- agencies concerned on the matter of the proposed 62nd Street Crosstown Highway. The Village Council authorized the withholding of permits for all new baUding within the limits of the proposed right of wag until October 1, 1956. Recently, however, the Council decided that the village was not in a position to pay the amount proposed by the Hennepin County Highway Department that would be needed to acquire vacant property and that the road was not of sufficient benefit to purely local traffic within Edina to warrant such an expenditure, by Edina. Consequently, the ban on building permits expired October 1. From time to time we have been advised that the State Highway Department would pay for all Land within the limits of . the interchange within Highway 100 and the proposed route. I ass waiting at this time to ascertain whether or not you are in a position to start acquiring the property needed for the Interchange. If you can advise sue in the affirma- tive,, l am sure the Council would give favorable consideration to continuing to withhold building permits in this particular location for a reasonabltr period of time to allow the Highway Department to make the necessary arrangemente with the ownere of the land Involved. Also, in view of the many problems. involved concerning State Highway 100 and U.S. High- way 169 through Edina, the members of the Village Council have asked that I request from you an appointment at which time the responsible authorities of the Highrrgi! Depart- ment could give us some definite ideas concerning the following matterst 1- The proposed program for future improvement of Highway 169 frame Highway I:OD S€ly. 2- The future improvement of Highway 100 with regard to installation of service drives where they do not nw exist and the program for Installation of over passes or traffic interchanges in the vicinity of 50th Street, Eden Avenue, 70th Street and the intersection with the proposed crosstown route at approx- imately 62nd Street. A11 of the members of the Council and I are fully cognizant of the many uncertainties in the highway design problem but in a rapidly developing community it is essential that we know as specifically as possible how, when and where the Highway Department is going to do major work in our cosmsunity. t.e have been attempting to cooperate fully with the plans of the department as beet we know theme, but in the absence of final answers it is, of course, impossible for us to act Intelligently in connection with requests for rezoning and proposed piattings. V,r. L.. P. F rm *rwan, Chief Engineer, Gtate Eligh y ftartimnt, ISt. Paul, Minnesota. Dear "Mr. rLXMQ=ang 'arch 6, -1957. Res Proposed I mprovemmt T. H, No. 100 ' WW its junction with T. He No. 1699 and with fiend ;tKeet Csosstobn pig1kwpy Udine. Your letter of Novwcber 7, 1956. You will, recaall that- on October -19, 19 rct, 1 Wrote (Copy enclosad) ' ask.ing for definite Anforaation all vaz icaus prOPO%G M91"tQy de velopze is in �: 4na, pointing ou , that it was rwst difficult for the Village try coeatinue to secure the coopbration of . subdividers and jaiiders who were ar:klcus w go ahead" with projects in various loca- ticns wheie state hit)hwaX proiocts were conterpiated, unloss we coui.ti secure positive, WInit-e infoimation fron yolk 6r `CO What Is tot be dcac, by your agency. -On Movamber 7 you advired C-. called for t a coar- pletion of a pxelir-,inasy, -iepoxt ors -the hiqhmy ir"Proverands as 0A March 1, 1957. On .February 2e, I calls -94r. € eiald df Or Cpxapany .aand as dismayed to find that, because the iji3. � Depewt-:ent had failed to, du3n !��i C= with traffic infor,ation ", it woul d be irpossfhre !or orr" to gs:ve anyt;%D y definl.lo at t I On f azch 4, b� waver, <<er. ; eaald did si.'..8plt to ejou to us a p.rirt �i a ipropossid* cloverieef intorchangt�, at thc- O :roposed locatien of the Crosstom In ,ersectlon. The acccia -Vanying letter to you _ fr=, fir. i,'efald says -wo do not t;fnoW Whether the cloverleaf type is Justi f3.ed or whetter a dia rxind typt� Al ntexci an: 4 ti v e3 r sf fi,c :." caL.�er zdS, we 1 cion °t ks:ncezat is crnie;q t4 be in In a letter dated Lbruary rw, 19 7; W. ic4h incld�ei�a!xy� is ;pus° f:_sy ::°et;uew: fca any Info=ation from V.r. Tefallds, he, asked for conscidera- lie lnforraa-tion "in ostler to facilitate the design of this project". Ha also stated "it is our i,nt:nt insofar as consistent with good engincex3njg practice to arrive at a -ff "l design win ch wail to Lry into C*ns' iderastion the requirements of tgae local 'area served b� Tolei . 100 and i Ls iniiaa,,;.tion with. T.R. 169. Today, Mr. rhe.lps faom hefald'c office called, and mada' arzasngec�@nts €:o sect. -e he In- €orm-ation -needed, not only for the 00_103 intersoctior, but also .for t.` a �;rosstawn in -- tea.seiction and for service dr:vos thq lengt ti of 100 thiough - L -41na. 'I cez-tainiy ac greaiiy dlsappalntu,d at the length of t mo it has taken to ;make such little progress and for .just a start i to be on getting the necessary data. When will we get theme? ur►iess a a d© get some absolute guarantee of &-finites" . final answers soon, we ca mot expect to continuo to oecvre the o4^peration of 1 tthe planning Commission,$ the Council, and thO property omers, involved in holding olding up development of the lased some thinks might be naaded for a proposed highway project. Yours very truly, MG'�3mB - Warren C. Hyde, Villa" tanager. Federal 8 -4706 ORR ENGINEERING COMPANY INCORPORATED HIGHWAY CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1104 CURRIE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS 3, MINN. February 22, 1957 Mr. Warren Hyde Village Manager Edina, Minnesota Re: Public Works Information S.P. 2733 & 2745 (T.H. 100) Normandale Road in Edina Dear Mr. Hyde: I am very sorry that there has been a delay in working out layouts and sketches for the above referenced itaprovement. About March 1, 1957, it is expected that the estimated 1975 traffic data will be available. This information is necessary to determine the design of roadways and interchanges. Shortly after March 1, 1957, it will be desirable to' meet with yourself and the Village Council to review the preliminary layouts. Such review would only be for the purpose of receiving sug- gestions and recommendations which should be taken into consideration in the preparation of the final design. It is our intent insofar as consistent with good engineering practice, to arrive at a final design which will take into consideration the requirements of the local area served by T.H. 100 and its intersection with T.H. 169. In order to facilitate the design of this project, I would appreciate, receiving as -built construction plans of the following: 1. Water Mains 2. Sanitary Sewers 3. Storm Sewers 4. Frontage Roads In addition, we would also appreciate receiving information concerning the following: 1. New subdivisions accepted by the Village Council but not on file. ORR ENGINEERING COMPANY Incorporated HIGHWAY CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1104 CURRIE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS 3, MINN. Mr. Warren Hyde -2- February 22, 1957 2. Information concerning future subdivisions. 3. Location of proposed swimming pool. 4. Location of park improvements. 5. Zoning Maps showing commercial, industrial, and residential areas along Normandale Road and the junction with T.H. 169. 6. Building permits giving type and location of structures. Mr. Alan J. Phelps of this office will call on your relative to obtain- ing this information. We will appreciate your assistance in this mat- ter. Yours very truly, ORR ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. gil Wefald Chief Engineer EW /bk CARL L. GARDNER -& ASSOCIATES THORSHOV & CERNY INC. ASSOCIATED PLANNERS • 400 METROPOLITAN BUILDING • MINNEAPOLIS 1 MINNESOTA • FEDERAL 9 -1881� January 30, 1957 6 Mr. Warren Hyde - Village Manager - Edina Village Hall 4801 West 50th Street .Edina, Minnesota Dear Mr.- Hyde: In view of the questions that have been raised about several statements in our report, we are preparing a memorandum and tabulation to clarify and document these points. One of the 'que stions had to do with our estimate of total investment over the last ten years. Our figure of $20, 000, 000 resulted from a tabulation of all building permits. This tab- ulation will be available. The second question had to do with our assumed construction cost of $5. 00 per square foot. This figure was arrived at by a sampling of industries and by an analysis of full and true valuations. Actually it wasn't necessary to make any assumption as to costs of new construction, as our supplementary analysis will show. However, the -$5. 00 figure is too low. Sincerely yours, XHasbrouck SH: iw April 6, 1956 Mr. I. We Hillsttrom, 1131. First �Street S..W., Mason City, Iowa. Dear Mr. Hillstrom: All indications, are that a crosstown highway will be built -in general accordance with the engineering plan which you apparently saw here at the Village Hall. I cannot tell you definitely when the project will be started or when property will be acquired'that is contemplated will be taken by the present plan. The difficulty is that there are agencies other than, the Village of ,Edina concerned_ with the problem. The County Highway Department, the State'Highway.Department, and the.Federal.Bureau of Public Roads are all involved in the picture, as well as.the City of Minneapolis and,the Village of Richfield. ' PAI According to the present engineering plan, Lots 3 and 4 of Block U, Normand'ale Addition, are within the proposed right of way. Accordingly, in accordance with the decision of the Village Council, no- building' permits -would be issued for this property until at least October 1, 1956. A builder took the City of Minneapolis to court on the matter of the City of Minneapolis withholding permits within the area proposed for the high- way in the City.of Minneapolis and the District Court gave'the City of Minneapolis' until.October 4,1956 to produce more definite information and a definite plan. The general program for the highway is.that ]and needed for the cloverleaf for highway 100 at the crosstown highway will be bought by the State High- way department and I uodorstand the State has money available and could go ahead on this in the very near future. Neither the Village nor the County has money for this purpose'in 1956. It'is our hope that money will be available in 1957,for the purphase of the property acquired. It is hoped that the construction would be started in 1958, at least t he section in which your property is. 'located, I 'hope this information will 'be of assistance to you. I regret that I cannot give you positive, definite information but in view of the number of I governmental units concerned, the possibilities of securing funds from the State or,from the Federal govern- ment, depending upon the action of the voters, the State next fall,'on a constitutional.amendment,-,and the action of Federal Congress on the. pending; Highway Aid bills, and other factors, we cannot be'as definite as weVwould like to be. If you have any other-questions,, I shall be happy to try to answer then. Sincerely yours, Warren C. Hyde, WCH:B Village Manager. MASON CITY GLOBE-GAZETTE A LEE GROUP NEWSPAPER LEE P. LOOMIS, Publisher MASON CITY, IOWA CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT April 2, 1956 Mr. Warren Hyde Village Manager Edina Village Hall Minneapolis, Minnesota Dear Mr. Hyde: Mrs. Hillstrom and I own Lots 3 and 4 of Block 11 Normandale Addition, Village of Edina. According to the prospective drawing on display.in the Edina Village Hall, a cross -town road is planned to crofts 64th Street taking part of our property. Would it be possible for you to tell me whether or not it has been definitely decided whe. -e this road will cross Edina? Will it be on 64th Street, or on 62nd Street, or some other street? If I sell this property described above, would the Village of Edina issue building permits for from one to four houses to be built on the property? This and any other information you can give me will be greatly appreciated. urs v y truly, ! 1 LLSTROM 1111 1st Street S. W. Mason City, IoTn ►a I'VH : CIE L. P. ZIMMERMAN. ENGINEER HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 440 COURT HOUSE ../)'linneapolis '5, ,./NinnesoEa 6 7 October 14, 1955 To the Honorable Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County GENEVA 4341 -4342 Gentlemen: Re:- Proposed Improvement on County Roads Within the Village of Edina and the Village of Richfield at Southdale I am presenting a report on the final stage of improvements upon the County road system -at the Southdale area for your consideration and approval.. As a result of meetings which have been held with the Dayton Company for the completion o¢ the road system into Southdale before October 19 19562 which is the date set for the Grand_ Opening of Southdale, the following plan is being presented: SECTION NO. 1 On Exhibit No. 1 which has been outlined in .red color the Dayton Company has agreed to make the following commitment: That if the County of Hennepin will provide $80,000,00 plus the engineering supervision during the construction, the Dayton Company will provide the remaining funds for its construction and right -of- way, and in addition dill pay all cost for the preparation of plans and specifi- cations for the awarding of contracts for construction. Within the area shown in red color on Exhibit No, 1 it has been discussed and agreed that: 1< On 66th Street from the end of our present construction limits East of France Avenue to Xerxes Avenue - to regrade this portion of the roadway to a divided highway and construct a concrete pavement surface 2e Subject to the approval of the Village of Richfield - to resurface and to widen 66th Street from Xerxes to Penn Avenue to a 50 foot width with _a bituminous surface as a temporary measure for the next couple of years, 3e On Xerxes Avenue from 62nd Street to 66th Street to construct a divided lane road upon the Dayton property and place a bituminous surface on this portion of the roadway, leaving the existing street (Xerxes Avenue) as a service drive. All this improvement under Section No. 1 can now be procured for $80,000.00 plus-Engineering as Hennepin County's share, and upon the County Board approval, agreement will then have to be made on the above proposed projects. a � Board of County Commissioners - 2 10 -14 -55 This agreement would have to be entered into with the Villages of Edina and Richfield and not with the Dayton Company. SECTION R0. 2 On the road system which has been outlined in Blue Color on Exhibit 1 is the portion that is now in the process of being completed as a grading project. It is proposed that the final stage of construction bee 1. On 66th Street from France Avenue to approximately 1100 feet East of France Avenue,to construct concrete pavement on the two divided lanes which will tie into the construction that has been outlined in Section 1. 2. From 64th Street to 72nd Street on France Avenue - to construct concrete pavement. 3. On the remaining road system west of France Avenue as outlined in blue color, which will be our new County Road No. 39, the roadways will be constructed with gravel base and bituminous surface. The cost of constructing the roadway surfacing as outlined in Section 2 will be shared equally on a fifty -fifty basis except for curb and gutter which is to be paid 100 percent by the property owner. The Dayton Company will provide the plans and specifications for the awarding of contract and Hennepin County will pay for all the engineering supervision. SECTION NO. 3 The portion of the road system in green color which is now known as Valley View Road extended southerly from 66th Street to the intersection of 69th and France Avenue, will be constructed of gravel base and bituminous surface which will be paid :100 percent on its construction by the Dayton Company, except that Hennepin County will pay for the engineering supervision. Plans and. speci- fications to be furnished by the Dayton Company. SECTION PJO. 4 Valley View Road from the Belt Line to 62nd Street which is an existing street in the Village of Edina as shown in purple color is in a very poor condition which will require reshaping of the roadway and placing of a gravel base and bitum- inous surface in order to carry the anticipated traffic leading into Southdale. Since Valley View Road from the Belt Line to the proposed Crosstown Highway is to be on the County Road System until such time that the Crosstown Highway is constructed it would seem reasonable that Hennepin County should share only'50 percent in the cost of construction on this portion of the roadway. At the present time no commitments have been made as to division of cost for this portion. SECTION NO. 5 The Dayton Company has agreed to furnish plans and specifications for the improvement of France Avenue from 54th Street to 64th Street for concrete pavement. Board of County Commissioners - 3 SECTION ADO. 5 - continued 10 -14 -55 For this portion of work $115,000.00 has been provided in our 1956 budget but at this date I am not sure whether we will have to use some of this money to finance the work proposed in the above four Sections as I have outlined in this report and also to be able to properly give engineering supervision to all the work in this area besides the other contemplated work in other sections of the County. At this date no discussion has been held with the Village of Edina for the sharing of cost on this proposed improvement. SECTION No. 6 In the 1956 Budget monies have been allocated for Hennepin County's share for the improvement of Penn Avenue from 62nd to 68th Street for concrete pavement. On this section the County, with their own engineering personnel, will have to prepare the plans and specifications, and as to date there has been no official meeting with the Village of Richfield in regard to the sharing of cost for this improvement, although the property owners on Penn Avenue have submitted a petition to the Board of County Commissioners and the Village of Richfield to have Penn Avenue improved in 1956 with concrete pavement. In this report I have given the outline of all the necessary improvements that will have to be constructed in advance of the opening of the Southdale Center on October 1, 1956, in order to properly handle the anticipated increase of traffic that will be generated upon the County System in the Southdale area. Consideration and approval is hereby requested on this report so that this department may proceed in the completion of the road system as outlined in the six sections. Respectfully requested, L. P. Pederson Acting County Engineer ?APP: db cals:Each Commissioner Mr. Paul Albrecht, Dayton Company Village of Edina. Village Of Richfield CROSSTOWN_ HIGHWAY Preliminary Estimate of Right of Way Cost S.A.R. No. 18 to Valley View Road. NJ Sec. 6- 116 -21 Auditor's Subdivision No. 196 Lot 1 (including 1SF Hs) Lot 3 Lots 4 and 23 Lot 24 NJ Sec. 5- 116 -21 Tract 600 " 800 " 400 Normandale 3rd Addition (including 1SF He.) R.L.S. No. 519 (including two -level brick home) Tract 5800 R.L.S. No. 424 ( including 23F Hs. and outbuildings Wyman Is Southview Addition and " 2nd Add. Sec. 4- 116 -21 James A. Roberts Estate 200' R/W No frontage Road 511,500.00 4, 000.00%/ 31,500.00 20, 900.00 ✓ 13,750' 00 20,400.00 8,000.00 13,500.00 37,500-00)( 10,000.00 22,000.00 10,000.00 Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9 in Block 7 14,000.00 Sept. 8, 1956 300' R/W Frontage Roads None required u It $31,500.00 19,700.00 82,500.00 20, 400.00 8,000.00 None required it n u " 22,000.00 10,000.00 None required Total for 200' R/W and no frontage road 8217,050.00 (in,6iuding $62,500 for 3 parcels with houses) Total for 300' R/W and frontage roads as required 214,600.00 (including same allowance for houses) Edward- R. Lorene We Warren C. Ayde Edina Village Manager 4801 West" °50th Street... Minneapolis 249 Minnesota Dear Mr. Hyde: Re: 5212 Chowen Avenue Minneapolis 10, Minnesota September 10, 1956 Cross -Town Highway - Right'of Way Cost Estimate S.A.R. No. 18 to Valley View Road In accordance'with -your request? I'have'made a preliiminary estimate of the right of way cost along a location of the proposed Cross -Town Highway, between S.A.R. Noe-18 and "Valley View Road, as laid out in the office of the Hennepin County Engineer. Attached i6-this estimate, admittedly made only on a basis of the maps, also attached, and'my personal opinion of values in this vicinity without extensive search of record ownership of the various properties affected. I have made this estimate on an alternate basis as follows: 200' R/U and no frontage road - - - - - - - - - $217,050.00 (including $62,500.00 for 3 parcels with houses) 3001 R/W and frontage roads as required - - - - $214,600.00 (including same allowance for houses) I believe that actual cost of acquisition if frontage roads are constructed may run considerably less than estimated , due to special benefit of the frontage road in future subdivision development. Construction - without frontage road will require very strict limitation of access and will cause considerable severance damage if this highway is to be constructed to modern expressway standards. Any first estimate is made on basis of such standards. Additional-right of way will-be required for traffic interchanges at the principal intersections if they are to be grade separa- tions. Accordingly, it is my• recommendation that 300 feet of right of way be author- ized with construction of the frontage roads either at time of building the main roadway, or at a future date. Yours t E. R. Lorens 1\ '9ja Q U J. E. SCHELEN S. M. ORR G. A ORR ENGINEERING CO. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Federal 8 -4706 1004 MARQUETTE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS 3, MINN. August 29, 1956 Warren C. Hyde Village Manager Edina, Minnesota Attached herewith is copy of letter dated August 27 from Ed- ward R. Lorenz together with a summation of Right of Way costs for the'Crosstown Highway in Edina. In reviewing I-r. Lorenz's letter it is my recommendation that the method of acquiring Right of Way as contained :therein be adopted. In a few days you will be furnished a Right of Way map showing all parcels of land affected by the proposed construction of this Crosstown Highway. EGIL %1EFALD EW:bk enclosure ,august- 27, 1956 Egil _Wefald Orr Engineering Co,, 89 So*loth Street Minneapolis 39 Minn. Re,-, Right of way Cost Estimate Cross -Town Highway Dear Sir, Attached is a detailed estimate of right 'of way cost for the respective parcels of property involved on Cross -Toa�n Highway between Valley View Roads west of N ormandales and Xerxes ,.venue,, This esti..ate is based 'on current market value of similar pro- perty in the vicinity and In gay opinion Is the highest price which the acquiring authority may be expected to pay in acqui- sition by condemnation. I believe that by careful negotiation some savings could be effected in cost of acquisition but this estimate is the "Top- Side" of estimated coat, My'personal recommendation is for acquisition by direct negotia- tion supported by Independent pre - negotiation aonraisa.ls by reputable real estate appraisers of the city,, Any parcels which cannot be purchased directly should then be acquired by condemnation, bn alternate method of procedure would be to place the entire project in condemnations and proceed by direct negotiation dur- ing the course of delayed proceedings similar to a successful procedure used on Valley View Road and France Avenue in 1955 ahlso attached is a summation of estimated costs for each of 3 distinct portions of the project as voll as the totals In my tabulation I have listed the special assessments which have been levied against the parcels with complete taking.. Vary ing amounts of these asp.essment's have been paid depending on the year levied but In general total amount_ outstanding is close to the total levy, These amounts must be included in the total Cost of right of way so as to avoid a deficit in the amount.collected to corer each special .project,, Yours tgully-r 4dward R Loren? 9UMM MON OF RIGHT OF WAY COST ESTIMATE Cross -Town Highway Vgllvy View Road to Xerxes Avenue Special R/W _._._. Assessments Estimate Valley. V aw Road to N ormandale Interchange Parcels 1 thru.4 12 ,,06 7069 $ 670450,00 Total 79 9517,69 i Normandale Interchange to France Avenue Parcels 6 thru.27 128692,37 1278540000 Total 1400232037 France-Avenue-to Xerxes Avenue Parcels 28 thru 35 (including 3 houses) 690058 121,9500000 Total 1228190058 Total .P 258450064 3168490,00 Total Estimated.Cost 3418940,64 REPORT ON CROSSTOWN HIGHWAY MELTING DECEMBER 20 1955 ,* ON FRIDAY* DEOEANBER 2g 1955, A MEETING REGARDING DES_ IGN PROGRAmg,:OF THE CROSSTOWN HIGHWAY WAS HELD IN THE Ge M. ORR OFFIOESe PRESENT WERE MR. Le P. 'PEDER80N, HENNEPIN COUNTY ENGINEER, MR. WARREN HYDE, EDINA VILLAGE MANAGER, MR. HERMAN GUTTMAN OF VICTOR GRUEN, AND MESSRS. ALBRECHT AND BRADDOCK OF SOUTHDALEe ALL OF THE ABOVE MET WITH MR* WEFALO OF Go M• ORR COMPANY* MR. WEFALD OUTLINED HIS WORK COVERING PROPOSED ALIGNMENTS FOR THE HIGHWAY. AT THE MEETING HE PRESENTED ALIGNMENTS FOR THE TWO MOST FEASIBLE PLANS* THE LINE WHICH GIVES THE BEST GEOMETRICAL ALIGNMENT INVOLVES THE ACQUISITION OF TEN HOUSES AND ONE BARNe THESE HOUSES RANGE FROM THE $25,000 TO $35,000 OLA8Se IF THIS ALIGNMENT IS SELECTED, SOME UNDESIRABLE GRADES MAY BE ENCOUNTERED IN THE FINAL DESIGNo THE SECOND PLAN PRESENTED BY MR* WEFALD INVOLVES THE ACQUISITION OF THREE, OR POSSIBLY FOUR, HOUSES* THIS SECOND LINE WILL RESULT IN VERY DESIRABLE GRADES. THE ONLY DISADVANTAGE OF THIS SECOND LINE IS THAT THERE WILL BE AN APPROACH OURVE WITHIN THE PATTERN OF THE PROPOSED INTERCHANGE WITH HIGHWAY 100* MRe WEFALD REPORTS THAT HIS ALIGNMENT PLANS SHOW THE TRAFFIC INTERCHANGE BETWEEN THE CROSSTOWN HIGHWAY AND HIGHWAY 100 AT A POINT:WHION IS SATISFACTORY TO THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT* THIS POINT 18 THE LOW POINT OF HIGHWAY 100 IN THE APPROXIMATE VICINITY OF 83# STREET. MR. WEFALD REPORTED THAT HIS DESIGNS HAVE BEEN MADE ON. THE BASIS OF A 50 Y.P.H. 8PE.E0. SUCH A SPEED RESULTS IN A MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL CURVE OF 4 Jol a IT HAS BEEN NECESSARY TO UTILIZE THIS MAXIMUM DEGREE OF OURVATURE IN THE SECOND ALIGNMENT AS PROPOSED BY MR* WEFALDe MRo WEFALD REPORTED THAT PROGRESS IS BEING MADE ON A RIGHT OF WAY MAP WHICH HE BELIEVES WILL BE COMPLETED AND.FORWARDED TO THE MINNESOTA HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT WITHIN THE COMING WEEK* IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE ALIGNMENT AS PROPOSED BY MR* WEFALD PRESENTS A VERY SATISFACTORY PLACE OF CROSSING WITH VALLEY VIEW ROAOe THE PRESENT'RROPOSED PLANS IN REGARD TO THE GRADE SHOW THAT THE CROSSTOWN HIGHWAY WILL PASS UNDER FRANCE AVENUE. MR. WEFALB WAS ABLE TO PRESENT A PRELIMINARY MINNESOTA HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT PLAN FOR THE INTERCHANGE BETWEEN VALLEY VIEW 'ROAD AND HIGHWAY IOOe THE FEELING WAS EXPRESSED THAT THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT PLAN 18 NOT TOO-SATISFACTORY AND WILL PROBABLY BE OHANGED A NUMBER OF TIMES BEFORE ITS ACTUAL CONSTRUOTIONe THE EXIST- ING HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT PLAN WILL NECESSITATE THE ACQUISITION OF SIXTEEN HOUSES. A MORE OONVENTIONAL TYPE OF INTERCHANGE WILL PROBABLY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION. OF TWENTY -TWO HOUSES. ONE FEATURE OF THE PROPOSED CROSSTOWN ALIGNMENT WHICH GIVES ROSE TO SPECULATION IS THAT PORTION OF THE CROSSTOWN WEST OF FRANOE AVENUE AND APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET WEST OF VALLEY VIEV ROAD. THE CENTER LINE OF THIS BEOTION OF ROADWAY HAS BEEN MOVED 145 FEET SOUTH OF THE LOCATION AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY SOUNCALEe THIS PORTION OF THE CROSSTOWN HIGHWAY PASSES ON THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF DAYTON PROPERTY FOR APPROXIMATELY I,780 FEETo IF THE ROADWAY 13,MCOQATED NORTH TOWARDS THE SOUTNDALE PROPOSED LOCATION, IT WILL INVOLVE THE ACQUISITION OF ONE ADDITIONAL HOUSEo' PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF MR. WEFALD'S ENTIRE SECOND PROPOSAL FOR THE ALIGNMENT OF THE CROSSTOWN HIGHWAY WAS GIVFJ40 SUBJECT TO A FINAL CHECK WITH SOUTHDALE REALTY IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THEIR THINKING REGARDING THE SIZEABLE PROPERTY ACQUISITION WHICH THIS ALIGNMENT ENTAILS. MR. WEFALD AGREED TO HAVE FINAL RIGHT OF WAY MAPS READY FOR THE VILLAGE OF EDINA AT THE FIRST MEETING OF THE OOUNOIL IN JANUARYS SOME PRELIMINARY WORK HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED ON OROS$ SECTIONS FOR THIS ROADWAY BUT A FINALIZED DESIGN HAS NOT BEEN SELEOTED. MR. WEFALD EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT A RIGHT OF WAY OF THE WIDTH OF 220 TO 250 FEET WOULD-BE MORE DESIRABLE THAN THE PROPOSED 200 FOQr RIGHT OF WAY. IT WAS ALSO ESTIMATED THAT A CONVENTIONAL DESIGN FOR TWO -WAY TRAFFIC AND TWO SERVICE ROADS (RESULTING IN EIGHT CURBS AND EIGHT GUTTERS) WOULD COST $125,000 PER MILK -FOR CURB AND GUTTER* MRc PEDERSON EXPRESSED A PREFERENCE FOR A DEPRESSED CENTER ISLAND BETWEEN THE TWO THROUGH TRAFFIC LANES WHICH WOULD ELIMINATE TWO OF THE CURBS AND GUTTERS. THE PRELIMINARY GROSS BEOTIONS PROPOSE A 20 -FOOT CENTER ISLAND BETWEEN THE THROUGH TRAFFIC LANES9 IT WAS AGREED THAT AT THE TIME THE FINAL PROPOSED ALIGNMENT WAS PRESENTED TO THE EDINA COUNCIL THAT ALL OF THE ALTERNATE ROUTES WHIOH.HAD BEEN STUDIED {WOULD ALSO BE AVAILABLE FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION, MR. GUTTMAN RE-EMPHASIZED THE NEED FOR FULFILLING THE COMMITMENT TO THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT WHICH INVOLVES DEFINITE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INTERCHANGE POINT WITH HIGHWAY 100 BY JANUARY It 1958e EDWARD BRADDOOKo JR. J SINCE THIS MEETING THE MATTER OF ALIGNMENT AS AFFEOTS SOUTHDALE PROPERTIES. HAS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH MR, OREAR AND MR. CRABS* IT WAS FELT THAT IT MAY BE DESIRABLE TO REVISE THIS ALIGNMENT SOMEWHAT. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTS MR. WEFALD HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED TO PROCEED WITH FIELD WORK IN AOOORDANOE WITH HIS PRESENT ALIGNMENTS BUT TO TAKE EXOEPTIONALLY WIDE OROSS SECTIONS SO THAT FUTURE ADJUST - WENTS OAN BE MADE WITHOUT THE NEED OF ADDITIONAL FIELD WORK. E'B i AN y6 101-VA Z- - Aso Gl`/ We✓Y� d y- s3 r / 4w �, WV."- 4 A a o"I", Id. aks,, , T Irai OAF m / r V 607 417 DL s �-c6 ell- eP Al 605,1 6a� 6 14 &V , �C/�/ �( '31 2 15L 6 S-Y 3� I--, 574-r, �g t 7 COST ESTIMATE m- SOUZ`FiDALE Sgbadule I 1 Ori 3 1 za �e n ' 13 Lk mi D—C tas S�ece s Flan�7 Flan using Sne�e Edna? �Sha I I France Ave,, 63rd to 73rd 66-th Sea. — France Ave. to 11007 E $1160130,00 ( ?) 0000 0 1169130000 HNC- 50% Roadway Edina - 50% Roadway pleas 100% curb & gutter I Valley View ® France to 62nd 54,171.70 {1} 0.00 549171.70 H.Cm 50% Road-WO-7 Edina — 50% Roadway plus 100% Bit. Curb I hall® View � r � =: � 69th -�0 66�1a r;,..:,.. 29;241.20 {1} 0a00 29,241o20 Edina ® 10 III i IT ±X 66-Uh m -11008 E® France to Xerxes Xerxes..A-�b. — 62nd to 6atb 66th St,, - X'simes to FannA $41,396.40 61 2 g59 7a 5 13,734.2. 4 41,396x40 15,61.725 13,73,4020 Edina Balance V11 VaUey View — 6'2:3 at T.H. 100 46,546.75 818445 ®45 P 25P401.30 HpCr Comer 247 Roadmy - Edina e :p Balance c�raz -T+-- vaaa TUTAL ESTIMATED COST 03969837.50 982145.45 $298,692005 { } Southdale aggeed. to .p &y 100 if this Schedule is used, MS 30h 2-17-56 A f COST ESTIMATE SOUTHDALE ed�l DSSsek 2 -n-56 Concrete Paving on France and 66th Strmb die Plan Total. Coat County's Eden g a I France Ave. 63rd to 73rd 829!o-�24.9.27 $137,422 73 $156,826.54 i 66th St. a France Ave. to 11008 E. H. C. a 50% Roadway. . Edina m 50% Roadway plus 100% Curb & gutter I valley View m France to 62nd 654,1'1.70 $ 25,609.85 289561.85 H. C. — 50% Roadway Edina © 50% Roadway plus 100% Pit. Curb. I Valley view ® 69th to 66th $ 29,241.20 0100 299241.20 Edina -.1 . III IV I% 66th St. 11008 E. France to Xerxes Xerxes Ave. - 62nd to 66th 66th St. ® xe=es to Penn ZB09828.52 95,617.25 13,734.20 809000.00 809828.52 1%6?7.25 135734.20 H. Co - 8,809000.00 Edina - Balance VII Valley Viev m 62nd to T. H,, 100 8,46,546.75 8189145-45 28,401930 H.C. ® Center 249 Roadway Edina m Balance TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $6149388.89 8,2619.178.03 8,353,210.86 DSSsek 2 -n-56 COST ESTIMATE SOUTHDALE (1) Southdale agreed to pay 100% if this schedule is used. DSSsek 2-17-56 I 2351 Bituminous Specs. on France and 6 Hennepin Plan count y's "c?i� e s I France Ave. ® 63rd to 73rd $1699688.95 (1) 0,00 $1699688.95 I 66th St. W France Ave. to 1100? E H. C. - 50% Roadway Edina ® 50% Roadway plus 100% Curb & gutter I Valley View m France to 62nd H. C. — 50% Roadway $ 549171.70 (1) 0.00 549171070 Edina ® 50% Roadway plus 100% Bit. Curb. I lValley View ® 69th to 66th Edina m 100% $ 299241.20 (1) 0.00 $ 299241,20 ' III 66th Ste — 11009 E.France to Xerxes $ 569801095 $ 569801.95 IV Xerxes Aveo v 62nd to 66th 959617.25 $ 809000.00 159617.25 IX 66th St. ® Xerxes to Penn. 139734020 139734.20 H. CQ ® $809000.00 Edina - Balance VII Valley View ® 62nd to T. H. 100 $ 469546.75 $ 189145.45 $ 28,401.30 Ho C. — Center 240 Roadway Edina - Balance { TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $4659802000 $ 989145.45 $367,656055 (1) Southdale agreed to pay 100% if this schedule is used. DSSsek 2-17-56 COST ESTIMATE - SOUTHDALE W*QJ;T7T,iM, T North end of Project shortened 200 feat. All pavement south of 69th St. (North R/W Line) as per 2341 Bituminous Specs. (Sea marred plan) DSSoek 2 ®17-66 j 1i61 8011 249 Concrete Slab on France and 66th St. i Wi�1.1L an ��� 233,1,1. st�e�se Hennepin County0s Edinals I Franu,j Ave. - 63rd to 73rd $192,501.,20 $85,844.40 $lo69656.80 I 66th St,, France Av. to 11000 E. H. C. - 50% Roadway Edina m 50% Roadway plus 100% Curb & gutter I Valley View ® France to 62nd $ 54,171.70 $25,609.85 $ 289561.85 H. C. ®,50% Roadway Edina ® 50% Roadway plus 100% Bit. Curb I Valley View ® 69th to 66th 0 292241.20 0.00 $ 29,241.20 Edina - 100% III 66th St. ®11000 E. France to Xerxes 73,139071 $ 73,139.71 IV Xerxes Ave. 62nd to 66th 959617.25 $809000.00 15,617.25 IX 66th St. - Xerxes to Penn 13,734.20 13,734. H. C. ® s8o9000.00 v �9 Edina ® Balance VII Valley View - 62nd to T.H. 100 i $ 46,546.75 $189145.45 8 289401.30 h, C. m Center 249 Roadway Edina ® Balance TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 85049952001 82099599.70 $295052.31 13") 5 It. >10 North end of Project shortened 200 feat. All pavement south of 69th St. (North R/W Line) as per 2341 Bituminous Specs. (Sea marred plan) DSSoek 2 ®17-66 j 1i61 8011 County Project 5612 State Aid Road No. 17 AGREEMENT FOR DIVISION OF COST FOR CONCRETE PAVING AND.OTHER IMPROVEMENTS OF STATE AID ROAD,NO..17 AGREEMENT Made and entered into this day of by and between the Village of Edina, Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the Village, and the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the County, WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, The County Highway Engineer has heretofore prepared plans and specifications for improvement of State Aid Road No. 17 (known as France Avenue) from Engineer's Station 0 +00 to Station 59+00 as shown on the County Engineer's plan for County Project No. 5612 for a total distance of'approximately 5900 feet or 1.117 miles, which. construction includes concrete paving, construction of concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks, incidental grading, drainage facilities and other related improvements of France Avenue; and WHEREAS, The County Highway Engineer has heretofore on August 22 , 1956, prepared an Engineer's Estimate of the quantities and unit prices of materials and labor for the above described project and an estimate of the total cost in the sum of $ 235,333.90 for said project; and WHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under the provisions of M.S. Sec. 160.4311 Subd. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, It is hereby agreed: I. That the County shall advertise for-bids for the work and construction of the above referenced project; receive and open bids pursuant to said advertisement and enter into a contract with the successful bidder at the unit prices specified in the bid of such bidden -1- C� The contract will be in form and will include the plans and specifications prepared by the County Engineer, which said plans and specifications have heretofore been approved by the County Board and the Council of said Village. II. The engineering services,to be rendered under said contract will be provided and supervised by the County Engineer of the County at the sole expense of the County, and the Village of Edina will be under no obligation to reimburse the County for any of said engineer- ing expense, nor for the expense of preparation of the plans and specifications which were prepared for this project. The Village Engineer of Edina will - cooperate with the County, Engineer at his request to the extent necessary, but will have no responsibility for supervision of the work. III. The Village of Edina assumes and agrees to pay the entire cost of procuring the necessary right of way easements, slope easements, including any and all damages accruing to any person or persons in- cluding public or private utilities in relocating or removing or adjusting mains, conduits, or other structures located in or upon any land taken, or damage in procuring such right of way, whether such damage is..caused by the County or the Village in the performance of such contract. Such expense is not included in the Engineer's Estimate above mentioned nor in the'term "'total:final, cost" as used in paragraph IV hereof. IV. The Village shall reimburse the County for its share in the cost of said project; and the total final cost of said project shall be apportioned and divided between the said Village and said County -2- as follows; (A) The Village shall pay to the County the full total final cost of construction of all concrete curb and concrete curb and gutter, concrete driveway entrances to private property, and all appurtenances that may be required for the future installation of traffic signals or street lighting system. The Village shall pay all costs for the outer'12 feet of concrete pavement which will be,considered as the concrete gutter. The curb shall be paid for as shown by separate items on the plans. (B) The total final cost of the remainder of said project, except as provided in paragraph IV (A) above, shall be shared equally by the Village and the County, each paying a sum equal to one -half thereof. It is agreed that the Engineer's Estimate referred to on page one of this agreement is an estimate of the total cost of said project; that the unit prices and quantities set forth in the contract with the successful bidder shall govern in computing the total final cost for apportioning the cost of said project according to the provisions of this paragraph. V. The County Engineer will prepare monthly progress payments as provided in the contract with the successful bidder which will be accompanied by an itemized statement showing the respective amounts paid by the County for the Village of Edina I under this contract. -3- Upon notice from the County Engineer or his representative to the Village of Edina that any sums payable to the Contractor, in accordance with the certification of the County Engineer or his representative, have been paid by the County either as progress payments or as final payment, the Village of Edina will forthwith reimburse the County on the basis computed in accord with paragraph IV. VI. All records kept by the Village of Edina and the County with respect to this project shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by.their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. THE VILLAGE OF EDINA By Mayor (SEAL) and Village Manager ATTEST: County Auditor THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN By Chairman of its County Board -4- 1 VIL LGE OF EDINA NOVEMBER 20, 1956. INFORK_'LTION ON PROPOSED LSSLSSi✓ of Property on France <Lvenue from 54th Street to 0;1 Kile South of 62nd Street. The proposed improvement contemplates the concrete paving of France avenue at a width of 44 feet, the construction of concrete curb and gutter, and incidental grading, drainage facilities and other related improvements. PUBLIC HE;.-RING, Monday, November 26, 1956, at 7:30 P.M., Council Chambers, Village Hall, Edina. Concerned with the present worn out surface and inadequate width of France ;venue, the Hennepin County Highway Department has proposed to the Village that France :.venue, from 54th Street to one -tenth of a mile South of 62nd Street be paved with concrete at the same width as France :venue now is North of 54th, namely 44 feet wide, and that curb and gutter be installed. In accordance with established policies, the County will pay one -half of the costs of paving, with the Village paying the other half plus the cost of curb and gutter, and the costs of adjusting sewer and water services. The County will pay for all engineering and supervision. The Village proposes to finance its share of the project as follows: 1. All benefitted property (the property abutting on France Avenue from 54th street to one -tenth of a mile South of 62nd street) will be assessed the full cost of the curb and gutter. Based on the estimate made by the County Highway Department, this will be $2.10 per front foot. 2. Property zoned for "Community store" usage will pay the full cost of the Villagers share of the paving, or an estimated $10.50 per front foot. 3. Residential property will be assessed one -third of the, cost of the paving, or an estimated $3.40 per front foot. This is the same basis that was used to pay the costs of paving and installing curb and gutter on France Avenue from 46th to 49th and from 51st to 54th streets; 4. The balance of the Villagets share of the construction costs will be paid from the General Fund, as will certain costs which will be necessary to secure slope easements, particularly,in the vicinity of Ylinnehaha Creek. The total estimated assessment cost is, Residential property Curb and gutter Paving (113 of Villagers share) Total estimated assessment Community Store property Curb and gutter Paving (all of Villagets share) $ 2.10 per front foot 3.50 per front foot $ 5.60 per front foot 2.10 per front foot 10.50 per front foot 12.60 per front foot The assessment can be spread over ten years, with the first payment not due until at least 1958. This assessment would be the first, and very likely, the last assessment on your property for street surfacing on France „venue. To provide sanitary sewer service prior to the installation of concrete paving, it will be necessary to install two "missing links ". One section is from Minnehaha Creek north to 55th Street, and the other is from 62nd street south for 528 feet. Proposed assessment hearings on these projects W+1:97-��eduled this winter and the owners of property which will be assessed will be informed. YOUR VILLAGE COUNCIL WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HERRING ON THIS PROPOSED, N EDED IMPROVD.IE'T ON MONDi*LY, November 26, 1956, at 7 :30 P.M., at the Village Hall. You are welcome and invitedl �- 6 -&- d �' ='3 Project No„ 5612 COST ES- 111,.L &TE ()itl S.A.R. NO. 17 �3''Tk1EEN W„ 54th ST. AND 0 1 MILE SO., OF w.62nd ST, GROSS LTENCPH 5900.0 ?EE 1,,117 MILES TOTAL ESTIMATED ESTIMATED SPEC NO ITEM UNIT ESTIMATE UNIT COST QUANTITIES PRICE 2101.502 Clearing Tree 61 17.00 6 111037.00 2101.507 Grubbing Tree 62 17.00 19054.00 2104.501 Remove Portable Culvert Lin.Ft. 169 1.00 169.00 2104.502 Removes Pavement Sq.Yd. 184 1.50 276.00 2104.503 Remove Curb and Gutter Lin.F4- we '342 .50 171.00 2104(,506 Remove ,Sidewalk Sq.Yd, 229 .50 114.50 2104.507 Remove Masonry Stxucturss(Headwa.21s) Cu,Yd. 6 25.00 150.00 2105.503 Class "C" Excavation Cu.Yd. 14357 .80 llt485.60 2.108.501 Special Ditch Excavation Channel Change Cu,Yd,, 346 1 ,,50 519.00 21100502 Embankment in place Cu.Yd.(V.M.) 14801, .65 7,,672.60 2521,501 Concrete Walk 4" Thick Sq.Ft. 1,,422 .60 853.2'0 257."?.501 Parkway Seeding Acre 3 1.0.00, 120.00 2576,501 Area Sodding Sq.Yd., 1,931 060 15,158.60 2571.561 Planting Soil (Topsoil) Cu.Yd,, (V. M.) 510 2.00 15020.00 24.63.502 '114 rtar Rubble Masonry Cu..Yd. 8 100,00. 800,= 2501.517 Pipe Culvert Excavation Cu.yd, 241 2.00 482.00 2501-512-3.99 F.&I. C.M.P. -A Culvert (199" S . an) Structural Plate Gage I. Lin.Ft. 120 135.00 169200,00 2501.551 Sand - Gravel dackfill CY:.e, Yd. (V.M.) 109 1.00 109.00 251.5.506 Concrete Culvert Headwalls Cu-.Yd. 40 100.00 4,,000.00 2515.599 Excavation for erosion control_ Structures CuaYd. 78 1100 78.00 2503.501 Trench Excavation Oo to 6a Beep Lin.Ft. 18153 1,50 19729.50 2503.502 Trench Excavation 01 to 10� Deep Lin.,Ft. 5 3.,00 15.00 2503,512-12 F.&I. R.C.P. Sewer (12 ") Lin.Ft. 19098 2.75 .39019.50 2503.51412 F. &I. C.M.P. Sewer (12 ") Lin.Ft. 54 2.75 148.50 2515.53112 F. &I. Metal Apron for 12" C.M.P. Apron 1 17100 17.00 2506.5C;I Excavation for Mant_Jles and Catch Basins Cu.,,Yd. 119 2.00 238.00 2506.506 Construct Manholes, Design A or F Lin.Ft. 5 30,00 150.00 2506007 Construct Catch Basins, Design C. oy° G Li�?.�'t. 35 30.0v y905()o+�ii 2506.507 Consl-Xuct Catch Basins,, Design A. or F 3.2 30.00 36%00 2506.516 F. &I. Casting AsseraCblie-s Assemi61y 16 60,,00 96010G 2506.522 Adjust :game and ring Cast-ings Assembly 24 25.00 600.00 21_04.511 Remove. Manh.o]_e Strac a•ure 1 25.00 25,00 2503,501 Trench Excavation 0° to 6° Desp Lin,Ft. 52 1,`75 91.00 2503.502 Trench Excavation 02 to 10" .veep L:in,Ft. 10 }050 35,00 250 3.503 Trench Excavation 0" to over 11.00 :Deep Lin,. t, 136 8,00 19088.00 250 ,.514224 F. &I. R.C.P. Serer (24'x) !•i1-!; Ft. 156 6.00 936,00, 2503.513 -910 F. a '' ±a V-0.10. Sewer (10`0) Lin. 7. t. 42 2„50 105„00` i, SPEC NO Project Pao. 5612 COST ESTIlikTE ON S. ii. R. NO. 17 BETWEEN -W . ,4th ST. AND 0.? MILE SO. OF . 62nd ST. GROSS LENGTH 59QJ.0 FEET 1.13.7 MILES TOTAL EST IA7ATED ESTI14ATED 7TEP` UNIT ESTSiiTE UNIT COST QUANT IT IES PRICE 2506.501 Excavation for Manholes 2506.506 Construct Manholes, Design A or F 25060516 F. & I. Casting Assemblies 2506.511 Reconstruct Manholes 2202527 Gravel Vase in place 2130.501 Water 2331.511 Bituminous Mixture In place 2301.515 Concrete Pavement9 Type 3 Care. (Stand. Stir. ) 2301,531 Reinforcing Bars 2301.541 Integrant Curbs Design B6 2301.541 Integrant Curb, Design B8 2301.546 I€eaders, Type A Cu�Yd, 87 2.00 174.00 Lin.Ft. 71 30,00 2',130.00 Assembly 4 60.00 240.00 Lin.Ft, 9 30,,00 270,,00 Cu.Yd.(V.Mo) 200 2.00 400.00 1000()',,.)Gal. 4 4.00 16.00 Ton 100 7.50 750„00 Sq.Yd. 309608 5.30 162, 222.40 Pound 109550 914 3- «;'. /"i'.010 Lin.F-t. 17193.99 .75 8,,399.2r- Lin.Ft. 307 1.00 307.00 Lin.Ft. 405 2.25 TOTAL ESTIILkTED COST Edina c s Share Drivelaay Pavement 548 S.Y. at $5.30 Integrant Curb Design.. B6 11',199 L.F. at .75 Integrant Curb Design B8 307 L.F. at 1.00 Gutter Pavement 1p918 S.Y. at 5.30 Above Items 10% Assessable to Edi.ns 1--0%7-6f Balance Edina °s Total Estimated Cost Hennepin County's Estimated Cosh, WL TP4 -2- 62904.40 8,399.25 307.00 1, 165=40 $ 21, °776._ u .92 rim 235 3,3.9E $128£554.97 235 Z0 00c Old SME�UzY OF ASST SSMN17.'S L��.II3D ANID TO BE I.,,VIF:D FOR ST- 1,tilal' IIT. ROVEM INTS ' OAS. T IRU- STITELP T S PORIPION of Cosy PORTION OF COST ASSESSIED TO ABUrTING BO wdE BY VILLhG% "COM1.14�,°xtf.L`1Y S`!'OiIREiF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: GEI E It; F120 PROPERTIES 14.50TH STS FRO? FR't,, v' -1 O "J13', C 0 3 t IMENING 4 .CT. � "tip �!; ;� � ,mss ���':�`s'?? �,:�1_lil�:dl�d�K -0- 612.50 4:o -, 4-91-F, tEFt,o FRkNCE AVE., FL OM W. ;_c;TH TO 1,- :51ST ST.- F1:0- . Cost PAVING, CURB AND Gl;`I°'f`a :i�_ � '� °iJ r.. 513T ST. j4_•�`,� FRANCE E A Vm., q. �•A .rl ,7 r r�r�� n•E.T ?4.50TH .3M . Fyjtill Cj1 k_:} A.�1'.r� V�CTi ORNAAIr�tITAL `2`du ` °�`,�. �' -0- 5,20 rt. Ftv FRANCE AVE,, 9 Nf x 6T-iN TO FRANCE AVE., PAVJKG CURB AND GUTTER WOODDALE AV NNE -W. 50TI- _. __... 0 `.l'C o&— ,,c BLACKTOPPING W- 54TH TH ST., FRUIUICY, CURB AND GUM-M, BLACKTOPPING w 4TH ST.. C}il ,::;r _ j WOODDALL AVE. BIACKTOP;1r-,4 January 20, 1956. (See attached sheets for detail) 2/ 3 Lost -0= :t'i7Ie Cost Fropepty- �� 5 0 8L, ?'r—t . F t � Not B neAj.tod FL -1 Cost f'G� 6i �i1; • 9t.s. !'ue .1La i'CFIOId OF i.f.> 'i - to ;3SIDElNJ::i% °'' Mot p G 1 �, ...:...::.? _..� . -:,•_ - ..._..�•...._ Not I'' -I ";.. . <. , a A'OT Blacktopping Iasi. borne in full i�j+ Genera. Firm. because .._- naccssary to change grade of ' .;l;th 5 . at, time France A -'e. and N;: a 54 -t•:1 St ., ',—iad P. aviously boen ha. d -sur 'aced. Project is not yet Assessed, but plan is for 1/2 Full Cost Not Benefited 1/2 Co!. - >'i per Ft,, January 20, 1956 PREVIOUS =3ESST•z IT'S ON THRU- STRLE'i' 1. W. 0TH ST. FEW KUNCE TO HPLIFAX ['1IDENING 1r FT. FT. EA. :SIDE: CVI'LB,GU•ER,SIDE','1AL?t - Assessm:nt levied 1947 -10 Yr.Basis Total Cost of Project $8,68Oa33 Less Curb Rad?us & Halifax Ave. Apron - Paid. by Village 221.26 Assessable Cost $8,459.07 NCiTE: Assessment was made or basis of a.ctLl l work done on each tract,, Some had drivvvmys refinished, so.-no had side-walk 'torn out and replaced but no drive�rays, etc. Assessment tm.s from 4;12..50 to pe_ Assessable Front Foot, - All property c:.SaeSS•'.''.d irJ e9('Qn 3�.�i:!'G?j :`_i�•orel¢ e:n'S'VTIi r'•O'.r nom''_ co-_ %.ner at j.rof...r LL St, 2. FRP0CE XqK UE FR OII 1�1 -l.�7 c TO 11.5 _ST ST. .., r; - �� r>r, a 191.,7-10' sr• 0 Basis PA'VEgG, CURE AND G'CfI.TL -11 Total Cost of trojact 9,715 38 Village Share Assessable Cost ti _ y ®_(1O� 5 .c 8 C o t p :r. - f s s a "sd;l0 FOOL, 0 29 All 1?_t"C7� ^_. rC•y 2�r��c'sseCl urasz "C'ou!:}.td�y:L�Gr�� ae0i °�G�2CCC- ��0� ".I7 i;°J3: " "tG'E 3%:1Y f .�'1t. 3. FIULNCIE AVE., 171.4,9TH TO 1:.-�-IJl ST: AND tr "i� )� �'iTow, r'i�.�� l/� `.�� . f�'u�CE CSI TAME IAL STRIEM , "CGH�'S - A$:�c�SSi << T�: le recd in 1949 (l(: ®Yr, Basis) Total Cost of Project $11,656..L6 Village Share 0- Assessable Cost ;AIo656.16 Cost per 1':3sessable root., ~75.20 All praperty assessed was "Cori mzsnity Store". 4. FRtlidCE i ?jIE° �o ['b�of�, '3 "�I_ O t:1. TIi STb: AIM 1',%51ST TO WT. %-,M ST. PATMG - Asse�sf,? =tit levied I 17)5-3- 0 53 EIO -YA. Ba:�is) - Total Cost of Paving x71,740 „30 Les Co"Yty Share -3_ 2923.73 Cost.to Edina 8,91675 (Full Comet p�-° Assessable F oo; 01 3 720.01 As;;esc ,I t. _ '0,17� �) - $2.71) Cmt to CornmxA ai v Store properties Comn.Stor'e AaSJeer;,iD 12,5 F''ua,..�,115d30 - 1 9r6.a.•�= Assess. -302 F '.C!s ?2.71 per Hoot G'0 e ,. X15 o Assessable Cost to "Cor .S'tor et° Assessment 5,112.79 Iess 2/3 to be borne by Gs , '-Fund be borne by Gen.Fund I,709.1'� Cost to Residential properties Remaining 1/3 to be assessed to ...,3�7� ost to Re,idenA- -1. properties Residential Property �? gj °a 5_.70 peg ilssess a[.?_ Fooic, $' 527 CURB AND GUM M: Total Cost of C & G 4 2,1,61 000 Cost to all a-zitting - voperties Village Share -0- per Assessable Fcot, $ .80 Assessable Cost 294T4.00 5. [d00DDALE AVE. , T +'1. t7�H ST . TO '� Ot 12 ST. BLACKTOPPING - Assessmen-t levied in 194.8 (3 -Yr. Basis) Total Cost of Project - Z 9,744-00 Village Share - 1/2 Const. Cost - - 49872.00 Assessable Cost of Conste Y�-!. ;- 872.00 Plus 7.01 Contingencies 487.20 Cost to abutting properties Assessable Cost a 50-59020 per Assessable: Foot, 71 6. CURB AND GUTTER -l'. am K.H ST. .,t FRMCE AVE. TO MURNTEHMA CR&,-X Assessment levied in 1952 (5YrI Basis Total. Cost of Project - 6 5,391.21 (Full Cost per Assess.Ft. on 2,194 -It. - $2.71) Cosst. Costs �2;636.66mwork clone by day Cost to Conn ;unity Store properties Comm.Store Assess. -302 F '.C!s ?2.71 - 818.1,.2 per Assessable Foot, $2.71 Cost after "Cor .S'tor et° Assessment 5,112.79 Less 1/3 to be borne by Gen.Fund I,709.1'� Cost to Residential properties Assessable .Cost to Res. Properties $ 3,405.E per Assessable Foot, $1.80 BLACKTOPPINGea[I.&TH ST., FWNCE AVE. TQ I•f' INEHAHA CRI M - Costt. Costs $2,600.27- - work done by day labor- -borne by Gmeral Fund in full because change of grade was necessitated by paving of France Ave. - Efork done in 1953. 7. I,T. TH ST., CREEK TO !.TOODDAIZ AVE.- BLACKTOPPING - Cosst. Costs �2;636.66mwork clone by day labor. This is not yet a,sessod. but I Relieve it is Council °s plan for General Fund 'to bear 1/2 of cost. ,:Tork done in 1955 L. P. PEDERSON, ENGINEER HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 440 COURT HOUSE Minneapolis 15, Minnesota 2 v GENEVA 4941 - 4942 October 3, 1956 Mr. Warren C. Hyde, Manager Village of Edina 4801 Vest 50th Street Minneapolis 24, Minnesota Dear Mr.Hyde: Re: 62nd Street Crosstown Highway I am very sorry that I have inadvertently overlooked writing you in reply to your letter of September 13th regarding the purchase of right of way on the proposed Crosstown Highway, although the information that I do have we have discussed by telephone conversation. As per your request the purchase of right of way was discussed again by the County Commissioners on September 25th and the Board felt that they had given a very good and reasonable commitment to the purchase of the right of way'as previously presented by me to your council members, and that this proposed highway would be of great benefit directly to the Village of Edina in the years ahead. Also, since the County would obligate itself to pay the entire cost for the construction of the Crosstown Highway and for right of way and construction for State Aid Road No. 18 in the future, the Village of Edina could and should bear the cost for the purchase of right of way for the Crosstown Highway as requested. As you know, the probable first stage of construction would be that portion from Trunk Highway 100 to Valley View Road, and I have been given the understanding by Mr. Zimmerman that the Orr Engineering Company has now been given the "go ahead" to design the grade separation of Trunk Highway 100 with the Crosstown Highway. - The purchase of right of way by the Village would not have to be secured all in.one package as it will take the County several years with its limited funds to complete the highway across the Village of-Edina. If County funds were plentiful to meet all the needs in the County for the next few years I am sure the County Commissioners would extend greater help to the various communities, but since our need is so great throughout the entire county our road and bridge , money -has to be spread very thin, therefore the County Board cannot give further assistance to your village for the purchase of right of.way for the proposed Crosstown Highway. LPIF :db cc s:Each Commissioner Yours very truly, L. P. Pederson County Engineer L. P. PEDERSON, ENGINEER y HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 440 COURT HOUSE Minneapolis 15, Minnesota 2 . September 24, 1956 Mr. Warren C. Hyde, Manager GENEVA 4841 - 4342 Village of Edina 4801'West 50th Street Minneapolis 24, Minnesota Dear Mr. Hyde: _ Re: 62nd Street Crosstown Highway I am in receipt of your letter of September 13th regarding the securing of right of way for the proposed Crosstown Highway. A copy will be forwarded to the County Commissioners, stating,the opinion and decision of your Council as to the division of cost for the procuring of right of way, and as soon as possible I will ask them for a review on this matter. At the time that I appeared before your Council to explain the pro- posed route of the Crosstown Highway through your village, you were submitted a request that this proposed highway be designated as State Aid Road loo. 62, and that your Council pass a resolution designating it a State Aid Route. Resolutions have been passed by the Board of County Commissioners and the City Council of.Minneapolis as to this designation and submitted to the Commissioner of- Highways for consideration; although no action can be taken by him until we have your resolution that the proposed Crosstown Highway be designated a State Aid Road. Having this route designated a State Aid Road by your Council would have no effect on any division of cost for right of way or construction, which will have to be worked out between the County and the Village. It is our intention, when we receive the necessary resolution from your Council to present to the Commissioner of Highways for.his approval, to start proceedings to have this route placed on the Federal Aid System and if approval can be secured from the Bureau of Public Roads then.Federal Funds can be used on the proposed project; although no action can be started in any stage until we first have it designated a State Aid Road. LPP:db cc :Bach Commissioner Yours very truly, L. P. Pederson County Engineer Waft State of Minnesota, ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, COUNTY AUDITOR'S OFFICE I, ROBERT F. FITZSIMMONS, Auditor of the above County, do hereby certify that I have compared the papers writing, to which this certificate is attached, with the original .... rwolutian ................ .... .... .... ,{ �w ,msµ y�y gy.... � • �' c &...02.. F...d dAb ... ...c(m, 013111 .. `... t �' ` :�t?� ...� .. VQ#.. A3.93as ... 4t srOL:.. ..! 1.# ......................................................................................................................... ............................... ........................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... as the same appears of record and on file in the said County Auditor's office, at the Court House in said Hennepin County,, Minnesota, and find the same to be true and correct copy thereof.. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my .hand and affixed the seal of said County, at the City of Minneapolis, this.................... su gwt day of .............. �`..... .............................A. D. 19........... ....................... ..........!� ....... .... a 62 y Auditor. d. 4. 4141W Copp' - August 7, 1956 Comi ssioner Ainsworth offered the following resolution, and moved its adoption: BE IT RESOLVED, That the present- designation of State Aid Road N,,. 62 as described in Commissioner of Hi hwayts Order No. 23952, dated September 1., 19549 be altered and extend to react as follows: Beginning at the intersection of-Trunk Highway Igo. 55 in Section 200 Township. 28 North, Range 23 West, with the extension Easterly of East 59th Street in the City of Minneapolis; thence Westerly along said East - erly extension and said East 58th Street to the intersection with 28th Avenue South in Section 24, Township 28 forth, Range 24 West; thence Westerly and Southwesterly through said Section 24 and Section 23, Town- ship 28 North, Range 24 beat to the intersection with 12th Avenue South and Fast 62nd Street; thercra Westerly along East 62nd Street and exten- sions thereof to the intersection with said 62nd Street and Xerxes Averus South at the k corner between Sections 20 and 29, Township 28 North, Range 21* West; thence 1-Iesterly on the extension of West 62nd StRa a distance of 179.14 feet; thence deflecting to t �e left along a 4 dWee curve ( delta angle 41 degrees 45 Minutes and tangent distance 546.26 feet) a distance of 1043.75 feat; thence along tangent tolast mentioned curve a distance of 1049 :0 f est thence deflecting to the right along a 4 degrees curve (delta angle 41 degrees 1) ,minutes and tangent distance 538.6 feet) a distance of 1030.3 feet ;then" along tangent to last men- tioned curve a distance of 30030.65 feet; thence deflecting to the right � along a 4 desme 30 minute curve ( delta angle 29 degrees 55 minutes and tangent distance 340.24 feet a distance of 66441 feet thence alon tangent to last mentioned curve a distance of 1U463.46 feet thence go- flecting to the left along a 4 degree curve (delta angle 3 degrees 48 minutes and tangent distance 394.63 feet) a distance of 770 feet.; thence along t ant to last mentioned curve to the intersection with County Road A1o• 9 in the North i of Section 4, Toumahip 116 North, Range 21 West, Thence continuing in a Westerly direction across the forth j of Sections 4 5 and 6 Township 116 North 4ange,„21 West, to the inter- section with County Load No. 62 on the line between Minnetonka and Eden Prairies Townships; thence continuing Westerly along the line between Minnetonka and Eden Prairie Townships to the intersection with the pro - posed U.S. outerr Belt Line Ughway and there terminating. BL IT FUR.TUR RL• SOLVED, Thz:t two certified, copies of this resolu- tion be sent to the Commissioner of Highways for his approval and con. - currence. The question wars on the adoption of the resolution, and the roll being called, there Were five YEAL';, and no AYS, as follows: AINSWORTH Yea CHHIR TLESYN Yea SCOTT Yea HANSON Yea Cl•'1tT1~.StU MAT�.HF.1KS Yea Resolution adopted* EDGAR W. JOHNSON WATER WORKS ENGINEER GORDON E. BODIEN PAVING ENGINEER - RALPH H. SPRUNGMAN TRAFFIC ENGINEER V'itp of Affineapolig; ENGINEER'S DEPARTMENT HUGO G. ERICKSON CITY ENGINEER Mr. Warren Hyde, Manager Village of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Minneapolis, 10, Minnesota Dear Warren: WM. A. OSTREM BEWER ENGINEER ERIC GORGENSON BRIDGE ENGINEER ELMER H. LUND STREET MAINTENANCE SUPT. August .16, 1956 I am sending to you a.certified copy of the resolution adopted by the City Council of -Minneapolis on the 10th day of August,, 1956, in regard to the_. Crosstown high- way. This may be of interest and value .to you. -Yours truly, Hu o. G: Erickson, ty Engin_eer HGE -j1 Form 30- 1M -10 -54 142DO. 79 m.r a9 s 1ue r; a , Amending and altering the desig- ,4,q#cs $Zf &SWU A{4'$RCid, -1 4& 62 wit4Y n,•th4) jQtyV,bi3 N.15nneaholis. Whefeas� Jr ugl�5f"7 1956'the ' Cow�ty .;B,oar�:.,�'�f,rbizei`County ;ill Hennep- bl,'}iA adopt°atgsolatiq.n,;a:l- tering the- &Aignat�on-oA State Aid Road Nor 62-,, within- tilc:orliorate limits of ` be- ,• City ' bf ±,Minneapolis l as follows: "Be It Resolved, That the present designation of Stale Aid Road No. 62 as - described . irf Commissioner' of Highway's Order No., 23952, dated ' September 1, 1954 and as- designaf6d in Resolution passed by the City Council " of the City of Minneapolis Novemhei••27. 1953.. be alLered and extended to read asi, tollows; Beginning fit; the,4ntersertion of West„�w(tn' ;'tne cseF'n�rf,Ia,- .�eztaee.iy of tact' 08th sir yet in hFt Uityiof,. Minncapohfi Zliittt�.�veSte(]� Tong- the �S�.lf 't? &tei4y exiet+a16n- "and said East5&th street to, ihe*1inter -i seefioh with,28th avenue�sou.th,i. Section 24, Township 28 North, Range 24•'West; thence westerly and southwesterly through said Section 24,and Section 23, ToNkn- ship 28 North, Range 24 West-to, the intersection with 12th avenue. south and East: 62nd street; •thence westerly along East_ '62nd. .street and extensions thereof to the in- tersection with said 62nd street and :Xerxes avenue south at the A/4 corner between Sections 20 and s 29, Township-28 ,North; Range' 24 West; thence westerly on the ex- tension of West 62nd street a dis- tance of 179.14 feet, thence de- flecting to/ the left along a ; de- gree curve. (delta angle 41• degrees 45 minutes.. and* tangent,•distance 546;26 feef) a distance of 1043.75 feet; thence' along: tangeiit to last mentioned curve.. a distance =•"of' 1049.0 feet; , thence deflecting. to the right along a 4 degree curve (delta •angle 41 degrees 13 minutes and tangent distance 538.6 feet)- a ,distance of 1030.3.. feet; thence• along tangent to last mentioned curve a •distance of 3000.65, feet; thence (deflectin'g, to , the ' right along a 4 degree 30_minu'le curve (delta angle 29 degrees 55 minutes and tangent distance 340.24 feet) a distance of 664.81 feet', . thence" along tangent to last mentioned curve w distance of 1463,4.6 feet; t thence deflecting to the left,along a14 degree curve (delta angle 3" degrees .48 minutes and tangen distance 394.63 feet) a gistance e 770 feet. thence -along tangent t last mentioned curve to th. inter section with .County Road ,No. 3 1n. the North 1/•- of Section Towr. ship 116 North, Range 21 We. >> Thence continuing in a lwesterl direction` ' across the north, ' C Sections -4, 5, and 6, Township 11 North; Range'21 West, to ;the in tersection with County Road N( 62 on the-line between Minnetonlc and Eden Prairie TownshipE thence continuing westerly . alon the line between Minnet.onlca,an Eden Prairie.,Townships to t.tie it tersection with' the proposed U. outer Belt Line Highway and ther terlininating: ' 1 ' • Be It- Further Resolved, That,tw STATE OF MINNESOTA, ss. County of Hennepin, CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, J\ LEONARD A. JOHNSON I, 1L XAC X1 1 7;t City Clerk of the City of Minneapolis, in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that 1 have examined the attached copy of- - - - -Re BOlut iori adopted by the City Council of said city at a.-- .---- regular--- -__ -.- meeting thereof held on the --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 10th. - - - -- . - -- .day of -- ...- August -- ... 19 - -- 56_, and have carefully compared the same with the original thereof, now on file in this office, and that said attached copy is a true and correct copy of said original, and of the whole thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of said City this - -- -- - -- - 14th--- - - - - -- -day of------------- August- ----- - - - - -- A. D. 1 5 6 -. City Clerk Mr.; Warren C. Hyde Village manager Village of Edina 4801 West Fiftieth Street Edina, Minnesota s Vii,. E� y���-.�1�.1�•. STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 1246 UNIVERSITY AVENUE ST. PAUL 4 August 2, 1956 Dear Sirr Re: Proposed Cross —town Highway Hennepin County State Aid Road 62 lie do not. have all of the information available regarding the above referenced highway location and plan.status but- we-understand that a location and preliminary plan has been -subai.tted to the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County and received their approval which, we.assume, means that the preliminary alignment has been approved from T.H. No. 55 westerly to some point where it will intersect present Valley View Road westerly of T.R. No. 100 in Edina. It is my personal feeling, at least, that the next step that should be taken is to have formal designation of the proposed route as a state aid road made ;.by the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County and obtain concurrence of the villages of Edina and Richfield and the City of Minneapolis and .mib it it to the . Commai.ssioner of Highways for his approval: Also concurrent4with this action, the Board of County Commissioners should request the designation of the route as a Federal aid urban highway. After these steps have beentasen the matter of financing should be resolved by the interested parties. It would seem to me that a definite means should be found of pur- chasing the necessary right of way at as early a date as possible: Yours very truly DEP GHtdAYS L, Haan LPZ/EC 'ef ineer HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 440 COURT HOUSE Minneapolis 15, Minnesota L. P. PEDERSON, ENGINEER 2 9 GENEVA 4841 - 4942 August 17, 1956 Mr. Warren C. Hyde, Manager Village of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Minneapolis 24, Minnesota Dear Sir: Re: Crosstown Highway State Aid Road No. 62 Submitted herewith is a resolution passed by the Board of County Commissioners on August 7th, 1956, asking the Commissioner of Highways to es- tablish the Crosstown Highway as a State Aid Road. In order to do this it will be necessary to have concurrence from the Village of Edina. For your.convenience we are enclosing copies of the resolution for the Village Council of Edina to act upon, three certified copies of which should be returned to this office. As already planned, on Thursday evening August 23rd in your Village Hall, I will show the Village Council the entire length of the Crosstown Highway from Trunk Highway 55 to the Trunk Highway 101 which will be the new outer Belt Line on the.Inter -State System. We have laid out a suggested routing for the Crosstown Highway through the Village of Edina from Trunk Highway 100 to State Aid Road No, 18 on an aerial map which will be presented at the meeting for dis- cussion purposes. It is hoped that we will be able to make some surveys on that portion of the routing this coming winter months. After reading a copy of the letter which you wrote to the members of your Village Council on August 15th, I feel that we have misunderstood each other in regard to the purchasing of right of way. In my discussions with members of the Board of County Commissioners it was determined that the County would buy the improved land for right of way (where there has been improvement such as residential homes), and all land that is platted but where there has been no construction, also the unplatted land, is to be furnished by the Village of Edina. The construction costs will be paid entirely by the County and the Federal Government if we are successful in having this roadway aioo designated as a Federal -Urban Highway, therefore the Village of Edina would not participate in any cost for the construction of the Crosstown Highway. Also, as I suggested to you, we are now prepared to discuss the proposal for construction of concrete pavement on France Avenue from 54th Street to 64th Street and I will have the plans and the estimate for construction costs for consideration. Yours truly L. P. Pederson County Engineer LPP:db E , October 180 1956 � °Ilk Mr, M. J. Hoffman, Co=dAaioner Minnesota HighwW Department 1246 Univeimity Avenue - St. Paul 4, Minnesota (tear Mr. Hoffmana Rea 62nd Street Crosstown Highway The Edina Village Council has asked me to forward to you a copy of.the Resolution adopted by the Council at its meeting of October 8, 1956. Copy of Resolution is enclosed herewith.. Yours very truly, VMAGE OF EDINA Village Clerk gsa i P f October 19, 1956 Mr. L, P. Pederson, County Engineer Hennepin County Hig m-ay Department Room 440, Court House Minneapolis' 15, Minnesota ; _Dear Mr. Pederson: Re: 62nd Street Crosstown Highway We are enclosing herewith several copies of a Resolution adopted by the Edina,Village.Councll at its meeting of Monday, October So 1956. Yours very truly; VILLAGE OF EDINA BY Village Clerk gsa f I IM M=,# the County Board of : the County of Hennepin did adopt a resolutiou altering the designation of State Aid Road No. 62, within the corporate A invite of the U23 age of Mina as follows - 8E IT =LVi), That -the present designation of State Aid Road Ito. 62 as described in Commissioner of HighWls Order No. 23952] dated September 1, 1954p be altered and extended to read as followes 'Beginning at the lAterseotion of Trunk Highway No. 55 in Section 200 Tovaship 28 North, Rqage 23 West, with the astensivn F"terly of East %th street In the City of 13moopolisj thence Westerly along said East- erljr extension and said &ot 58th Street to the intersection with 28th. Avenue South in Section 214 Township 28 Northp Rauge 24 t estj thence Westerl3r and Soutlametorly through paid (Section 24 and Section 230 Tom- ship 28 North] age 24 liest to the intersection with 12th Avenue South and East 62nd Streetj thence Westerly along Fast 62nd Street and eaton sions thereof' to the inte+rseotion with said 62nd Street and Xerxes Avenue South at the 4 corner between Sections 20 and 29, Tmw ip 28 North, Range 24 Westj theme Wooterly on the extension of hest 62nd Street a dUrtame of 179.34 teens thence deflecting to the left along a 4 degree curve (delta angle 41 degrees 45 minutes and tangent distance 546.26 feet) a distance of 1081,3.75 feats theme along tangent to last mentioned curve a distance of 1049.0 .feet; thence deflecting to the right along, a 4 degree curve (delta angle 41 degrees 33 suites and tangent distance $38. 6 feet) a distance of 1030.3 festj thianoe along tangent to last meactloaod curve a distance of 3000.65 festj thence deflecting to the right aelang a 4 degree 30 minute ours (delta angle 29 degrees 55 minutes and tangent distance 340.24 meet ) a distance of 664.81 feetj thence along tangent to last mentioned curve a distance of 3.463.46 festj thecae de- floating to the left along a -4 degree curve (delta angle 30 degrees 48 minutes and tangent distance 394.63 Feet) a distance of 770 feet; thence 4ang tangent to last mentioned cum to the intersection with County Rand No. 39 in the North k of Section 4 Township 116 North, a 21 West. Thence continuing in a Westerly direction across the Forth of sections 40 5, and 6,0 Township 116 Korth, Range 21 Vest, to the Inter- section with County Road No. 62 on the line betwosa Mmotonka and iden Prairie Townships] thence continuing t6eaterly along the line between KlnnstoWa and Eden.Prairie Tomehip+a to the intersection with the proposed t1. 3. outer Bolt Line Higtaay and there, terminating, NOW], THIAMHE# be it resolved by the Village age Council of tba Village of Edina that said resolution as it affects the Village of Edina, is in all things approved. BE IT FURTHat m=Viz that by wooing to the foregoing this Council is not agreeing to any specified division of cost for said State Aid Road No. 62. GWJCHEK SO U&N Village Clerk_ CER- 11FIgA T10. I hereby certify that the above is a trus and correct coyer of a Resolution duly passed, adopted and - approved by the V • Council.` of said Yi13aRe o! Edina on October 8th. 1 �Y, ORR ENGINEERING COMPANY HIGHWAY CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1004 MARQUETTE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS 3, MINN. July 24, 1956 Mr. Warren Hyde Village Hall 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota Under separate cover we are transmitting prints showing current progress on the plans for Crosstown Highway in Edina. The fol- lowing drawings comprise this submission: 1. Bridge Section for Valley View Crossing showing: a. Cross- section of Roadway on Valley View under Bridge. 2. Detail Plan Sheet of Valley View Road Interchange. 3. Typical Section at France Avenue showing: a. Cross- section of Highway under France Avenue. b. Typical Section of Bridge Surface on France Avenue. 4. Detail Plan Sheet of France Avenue Interchanges. 5. Typical Roadway Section Sheet showing Sections of: a. Highway in Cut or Fill. b. Highway at structure. c. Service Drive. d. Single Lane Ramp. e. Transition Ramp from 2 Lane to 1 Lane. f. 2 Lane Ramp. 6. Five Roadway Plan and Profile Sheets from Sta 54 4 00 to 11 4 25 also showing tenetive Drainage Layout. (Xerxes Ave.) ?. Lone, Right of Way Map showing Right of Way Requirements. B. 3 Profile Sheets showing Profiles of various Service Drives and Ramps. 9. 18 Roadway Cross- section' s covering from Sta 55 -� 00 to Sta 111 4 25. Prints showing progress on Bridges are not available but it can be reported that design is 1007 complete and drafting 15`o complete. Yours ver tr ly, EGIL WEFALD EWbk HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 440 COURT HOUSE Minneapolis 15, Minnesota L. P. PEDERSON, ENGINEER z V GENEVA 4541 - 4542 December 29, 1955 Mr. Warren C. Hyde, Edina Village Manager 4801 West 50th Street Minneapolis 10, Minnesota Dear Sir: Re Proposed 62nd Street Cross Town Highway As a result of the meeting that was held at the G. M. Orr Company on Wednesday, December 28th this letter is to advise you that this Department accepts the point of intersection (P. I.) on the center line of the present Trunk Highway 100 and the proposed 62nd Street Cross Town Highway as a'definite reference point for the future construction of the proposed Cross Town Highway. Yours very truly, L. P. Pederson County Engineer LPP:db Village of Edina January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right - of -way. On July 25, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 1, 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long- considered 1162nd Street" Cross -town highway. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way during the past six months. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not.issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments, full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956• On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Crosstown from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. - The engineering on these four proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials.. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right-of-way) which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right-of-way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes, At a 250 foot width right -of -way, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. -1- A new design for the grade separation between the Cross -town route and Highway 100, which includes the area between Ryan on.the east, Warren on the west, just north of 64th on the south and just north of 62nd on the north, as shown on Proposal 4, requires taking only nine homes, instead of eighteen as planned originally. This means that not more than nineteen and possibly only thirteen homes, would have to be taken to provide a modern high- way of almost two miles in length. Unless the ban on building permits is continued, however, many more homes will be built in the near future which would have to be acquired later when all final arrangements for the proposed highway are completed. This, of course, would make the cost of the project considerably higher. Both the County Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways, State of Minnesota, have approved the alignment shown on Plan 4. The proposed Cross -town route is'n dated November 10, 1949, by the Mi suggested the need for such a rout, and Trunk Highway 100 on the west The Minneapolis City Council in 19 surveys, to discuss the need for t and Edina and Richfield, and appro 30, 1955, the Minneapolis City Cou, tion for the route from Portland A a new idea. It was proposed in a report eapolis City Planning Commission, which to connect Tank Highway 55 on the east a the South City limits,.or 62nd Street. directed the City Engineer to make field route with the County, Airport Commission d the route in principle, On September it authorized the initiation of condemna- nue east to 46th Avemze, The Minneapolis City Council has also authorized the withholding of building permits along a portion of the proposed route. This action resulted in a builder going to court to force the issuance of a permit. On December 6,. 1955 Judge Carroll, in the case of Ole Hansen vs. City of Minneapolis, continued the matter until September 28, 1956. It4s believed that the judge felt the city should not be compelled at this time to issue a building permit which would allow the improvement of property that the city might later condemn and thus put the taxpayers to an extra cost. The case was continued upon condition that if by September 28, the city had proceeded with reasonable dispatch and was making progress towards the con- demnation and completion of the project, the writ of mandamus would not issue. It; is the hope of at least one chief official for the city that some right -of- way can be purchased in 1956, The County Board highway committee is definitely in favor of expediting the acquisition of the necessary land and'starting construction as soon as poss- ible. This committee has authorized the County Highway Engineer to coordinate the activities of the various agencies concerned. The State Highway Department is prepared to take its proper role of acquiring and building the cloverleaf at Highway 100 as soon as it is convinced the County, City, and Villages concerned are serious about the route. The State has already ordered work to be done on designing the separation at Trunk High- way 100, and while there may be some minor changes in the final design from that shown on Plan 4, the, elongated cloverleaf proposed is generally accept- able., and State officials feel Plan 4 is the most economical and has proper design. -2- M . :. As the matter stands now, the route within the limits of Edina would be financed as follows; The Village would be required to buy the right-of-way from where the proposed route intersects Valley View Road west of Highway 100 at Warren Avenue to the point where V lley View Road extended intersects the proposed route between Brookview Avenue and Peacedale Avenue, with the excep- tion of the land within the cloverleaf area at Highway 100. The cloverleaf and land necessary for it would be a State cost. The County, with some State funds, would pay for construction. It is hoped the County would be able to budget at least some of the construction costs in the 1958 budget. If, how- ever, Congress passes a revised and expanded Federal program designed to aid urban projects of this type, in connection with the PresidentIs request for heavier Federal financing of highways, then the cost to the Village would probably be reduced, as the cost of the necessary land would probably be a participating cost. The above discussion relates primarily to that portion of the proposed high- way from Highway 100 east to Xerxes. The whole program contemplates continu- ing the road to Lake Minnetonka, and while construction west of Warren Avenue is not likely for at least five years, with practically no building in the proposed right of way at present in the West portion of Edina, efforts should be made to secure this right -of -way as soon as possible and the ban on build- ing should apply to the proposed location throughout Edina. Efforts should be made immediately to have the necessary engineering done on the balance of the proposed right -of -way west of Warren Avenue. If the project was considered necessary in 1949, by the Minneapolis City Plan Commission, after a thorough study, it is even more nec6ssary now, 7 years later, with the.tremendous building developments in the south suburban area. The Metropolitan Sports Stadium, and the Southdale Shopping Center, which probably would not have been built as far south as they are unless there had been a terrific amount of home building in the general area, only intensify the need. There are many advantages to Edina to have a route designed for tomorrowts traffic crossing the Village from east to west. Such a road would relieve 50th Street, which is already badly crowded, and it would make it possible for Valley View Road, 66th Street and to some extent 70th Street, to be purely residential streets. It is believed that the number of homes needed for Proposal 4 represents the absolutely minimum that can be taken. On the basis of the above facts, it is therefore recommended that you approve in principle Plan 4 and authorize the continued holding of building permits and subdivision plats within the limits of the proposed right-of-way until October 1, 1956. If you concur, we should then secure as soon as possible. accurate estimates on the costs of the land involved and construction costs and work with the County, the City, and the State to expedite final deci- sions, in order that the owners of both homes and vacant property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way may be given definite information within a reasonable time as to whether their property is to be taken and, if it is, how much they can expect to be paid, when they can,expect to receive the money, and from whom they will be paid. R E`P 0 R -T ON THE SOUTH CROSSTOWN HIGHWAY A PROPOSED HIGHWAY CONNECTING T. H. 55 AND T. H., 100 VIA THE SOUTH CITY LIMITS PREPARED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 10, 1949 ROBERT T. JONES-PRESIDENT PATRICK H. CARR•VICE•PRES. F E L T ON C O L W E LL RAY C.EWALD•SECRETARY RICHARD •0. HANSON ERIC G. HOYER• MAYOR EDWIN F. KELLEY 0. K. BURG W. GLEN WALLACE STAFF HERMAN E. OLSON•CITY PLANNING ENGINEER ROBERT W.PIERSON•ASS'T. CITY PLANNING ENGINEER DEL ROY C. PETERSON -PROJECT PLANNER FREDERICK A. STRAUEL• SENIOR PLANNER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINNEAPOLIS 15, MINN. 339 CITY HALL BRIDGEPORT 6678 December 8, 1949 To the Honorable City Council Minneapolis, Minnesota Gentlemen: COMMISSIONERS ROBERT T. JONES, PRES. PATRICK H. CARR. VICE -PRES. RAY C. EWALD. SEC. ERIC G. HOYER. MAYOR 0' K. BURG FELTON COLWELL RICHARD O. HANSON EDWIN F. KELLEY W. GLEN WALLACE CITY PLANNING ENGINEER HERMAN E. OLSON The City Planning Commission herewith transmits a report prepared by its staff under the direction of Herman E. Olson, City Planning Engineer, proposing the construction of a South Crosstown Highway stretching from the West Belt Line or Trunk Highway No. 100 to Trunk Highway No. 55 at Fort Snelling in the general location of 62nd Street. In view of the progripssive improvement of private lands which in the near future could seriously interfere with the economical acquisition of the needed right of way for this highway, the City Planning Commission feels that the matter of acquiring lands for this project is quite urgent. The City Planning Commission recommends this project to the City Council for its early consideration. Respectfully submitted, CITY A"NING COMMISSION Robert T. Jo e , President Ew ld, Secretary r t _. ry v ON _ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ® MINNEAPOLIS 15 MINN. �0 RJYM[ 339 CITY HALL BRIDGEPORT 6878 November 1091949 To the Honorable City Planning Commission Minneapolis, Minnesota Gentlemen: COMMISSIONERS ROBERT T. JONES, PRE8. PATRICK H. CARR, VICE-PRES. RAY C. EWALD. SEC. ERIC G. HOYER, MAYOR O. K. BURG FELTON COLWELL RICHARD O. HANSON EDWIN F. KELLEY W. GLEN WALLACE CITY PLANNING ENGINEER HERMAN E. OLSON I present herewith a "Report on the South Crosstown Highway." This report proposes the early acquisition of land , for this proposed highway. Because of the rapid expansion of building construction in the southerly areas of the City of Minneapolis and the adjoining suburban districts, acquisition of the needed right of way must be accomplished at an early date. HEO /ds Respectfully submitted, Herman E. Olson City Planning Engineer LII IF JU D51DJUEE, U U ji 0 Ell W JLLI ]r7 J 1.L ✓( V LAKE . 01�e popo > A' u "LROUAI I In G O.L P �<M C L U D g El D El 0 EKI E P, Ll, L] I I � � �uL ����u ODD Da0 a c 'ol 'o e u o o `. �LI LI I I �L_L����IJ�� I— r e�I'�� � _O� � �' /, GG ,G u es< L—JuTri UTj 1 0 00 L100 DD At, I Eff, 2. U E Dun R u, Ho DUE Loms `I Lim o o On I o 1 1 L. u ME U -v u FLJQ L11 J'-U F Fil I'l IL", ILI, 71 LLUIL Do In - ----- - --- r f1r.popto - E_;46N;10N -TO 7711TIF--- 11111=1 =11 A BIMINI 11 ,Elm .11.1 1�111� i 1 11 11111 1111 11111111 1111 \\ 111 IN M T Q Y z 11,1111111111 .11111111111111111111111 1111111111,1 `\ \1111111111 I ��111111 1111 II 1 I111111111111111� 1111:111111. 11 ' \111111111 1 111 11111111111111 111111111111111111 E Elm -0 1111111= 111 °I °I \ \ \ \\ 1111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111 \��� 11111 iI 111111111111111111 1111111 111111 - � 1111111 �111 � 1111 I , 11 111111:1;1.1= 11= F1`11 =�= ° _ X111 I 1 L � � � `,� .. =, . . . . . . . . . . 1:11111:1,1111 _ 111111111 Ii1I11l111 w ,,II 2 M arcm L [ J Lj Lj LJLJ ---------------- UnD D LD PT L `7 rq L;jj A ;R F_ A: Lin �10 n n 0 n D F 771 �J � L2 -4-1 4 r 1 IX j; J, 1J, L 1> ILI I 0 F ILI 0 + --- ---- O II I :.NAT4Q;14AL' y CA' R T ODD A I ft P I- U Ill] I i 7U P111 J, E. P N$ 11 0 1 . 4 -0i J �;z -------- Z_ ---- ------ M I N N E A P O L I S E N A ':";: : L9 ic CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED SOUTH CROSSTOWN ra 10 MGHWAY -CONNECTVIA ING T.H.NO. ND AND TH. NO. 55 — 62 D ST. ------- - - -- -------- ----------------- ------ ----- - -------- -------- .R MAN .. .71L.W. 'LAN "Line ENSINKAN .170 N, 6LA1 �18 8 :71 A. ,_, SOUTH CROSSTO,:I_N HICH'iAY Historical: The earliest highway development plan for the City of Minneapolis recognized the need for an additional main crosstown east and T „rest highway south of Lake Street and within the city limits; Because of natural barriers in the form of lakes, parklands and cemeteries, these plans have always Dlaced the location of such a future main east and *,nest high- - way in south Iiinneapolis at some point southerly of Minnehaha Parkway. At various times plans have been prepared for this highTray at locations on 58th Street' o;� 60th Street► These previous plans are included in general arrange- ment in the official report on "I±ajor Arterial Streets and Trunk Highways” approved as a part of the corlprehensive plan of the city by the City Planning Commission on January 24,1941, and also approved as part of the "Overall Plan of Arterial Streets and Trunk HighT,raysll and adopted by the City Planning Commission and City Council as an official plan of the city in 1947. Traffic to Be Served: The high,,-ray now proposed follo-,rs these earlier plans, but due to the increase of buil(ing construction, is planned for a location on 62nd Street, east and T;rest, deviating north- easterly from 62nd Street at Cedar Avenue to pass the northerly edge of '.Told Chamberlain Airport at 58th Street, The proposed highway would extend from Hiai:ratha Ave- nue ( Trunk Highway Yo.55) on the east, to the e st Belt Line (Trunk Highway No.100) on the west.l Further extension of the 1pronosed highway *,,resterly to conform T-rith plans of the County Highway Department is in- dicated on the Regional 1.1ap of the (County which is part of this report, Map ShoT;ring Relation to M etropolitan District: As shown on the map fronting on this page, this high - way Trould serve traffic moving to and from the airport both from the east and the west, and by ,.ray of H iairatha. Avenue at its easterly end provides connections to the Ford Bridge and `:iest Seventh Street Bridge leading to St.Paul and to the Men- dota Bridge leading to South St.Pdul and the southeastern part of the state in general. i To the west, by Tray 'of the 'nest Belt Line, the pro- posed highway would serve traffic: from all of the main high- ways to the northwest, Trest and south -west of Iiinneapolis.. To the south, the proposed highway intercepts all of the highways in and out of the city from the 1ississippi River lot Ib9 -LEGEND- U.S. HIGHWAYS STATE-TRUNK- COUNTY - HIGHWAYS-.... fobh;17.rW 71E pRoposF-P, sou'rm Admel CROSS. ToWt4-14IGHWAY AN17- EXTENSION ,-......0000 lb • NOTES lot Lowlv( -j 1 RFSOURCE" 1948 1414HWAY MAP By MENNEFIN COUNTY W14HWAY ILI DtFARTMENT. BROAVY Y I _j r - w 1 AV. 141-aypla - lie 12 :WAYZATA 0 A A J0 u t . I IAKB ST. MAKSHALiL AV. e4_ ... .... 101 11opkIlls cl W9 IL, -V is 11 'SOTO. ST. 3 ------ -.1 j vn fxcelljOP 100 79. 19 sT'�'I' --sr Mendota AIRPORT 100 101 FELT LINE rworia k, Eden 212 41 I N N E A P 0 L I S CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGIONAL MAP OF PROPOSED SOUTH CROSS-TOWN HIGHWAY Chaska lot INNE50 AND EXTENSION TO T.H. NO. 7 Shakopee HERMAN E. OLSON DRAWING NO. 0 0110f e PLANNING ENGINEER 2170 0 1 a ' NORTH STATUTE MILES B-6-1-7 to the West Belt Line. For all of this traffic the proposed highway would form a direct route to the airport, to St.Paul and South St. Paul, and i.�rould serve as a distributor into this city from there main points of traffic concentration. In addition, through traffic now using interior streets, particularly in- dustrial traffic, livestock, etc. moving beyond Minneapolis, would be induced to use this route as a by -pass route. The route proposed would shorten the distance to South St.taul of all traffic from the west by approximately four miles compared with a route for the same traffic by way of the ';est and South Belt Lines as now laid out (Highways No.100). As shown on the plan relating this highway to the metropolitan district, traffic originating in the south and southwest areas of the metropolitan district ! -.,rill have speedy access to numerous routes leading into the Minneapolis loop and into the industrial areas of the Twin City district This will make possible a more equal distribution of the traffic load on major arteries leading into the center of the city and relieve excessive loads correspondingly. The proposed cross- town is approximately.four miles south of Lake Street and two miles north of the South Belt Line (=iighTray 111o, 100) T,lhich is at 78th Street. Part of Overall Traffic Plan: The drawing fronting on this page shows the relation- ship of the proposed South Crosstown Highway with the highway system in the metropolitan region, If extended westerly of Trunk Highway No.100 as indicated on the map, this route would provide a new access route to the Minnetonka area, Proposed Stages of Development: The development .of a crosstown highway as proposed can be carried out quite economically on a stage construction basis. The following stages of development are proposed: A. acar_t land in of i-aav to the total- width of complete development. The only exception to this proposal is that where there are large tracts of unplatted land adjoining the - proposed right of way, a policy be established requiring future subdivisions to provide space and to develop the parallel service reads that are an essential ,>art of the design of the proposed highway, B. The construction of one two -lane roadway of the proposed tT.o roadway system.'- On this basis, the first roadtray T; ould carry tT,%To - *.gay traffic. The road - -ray first constructed liould switch from the north to the south roadway locations to accommodate itself to the immediate land acquisition program., This is — zy- �n' PROPOSED HIGHWAY EXTENSION • TO U.S.HIGHWAY AND STATE TRUNK- HKNWAY SEE REGIONAL. PLAN STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 100 TO LOGAN AVENUE SOUTH C I T Y LIMITS m _"= e= lilma ��_ =�;�E e r E LOGAN AVENUE SOUTH TO BLOOMINGTON AVENUE -- tim —fix, 'I "' �■ ..i s—° -�� Y= 10=10 a �� �i ■■ ■ X11°°,-_ I?-.. -- - •� J I E7. KEVIN CMYRCX 11 >° PROPOSED I' PARK APEA � Ra _��_�• //' Uri y`a'r j// : %j jr fir' w HOSPITAL- GROUNDS. COVNTY Hj4HWAY 14- 53 1 V. f- NAVY PRPPE RTY ( �' 'E� 11 I i ...I ... u LEG END _ ------------ FtRST.STAGE- HIGHWAY- RIGHT OF WAY ACQU151TION - FIRST 5TAGE- CONSTRUCTION - SHOWN -IN RED _ FINAL ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION SHOWN IN BLACK. DOYTED LINE PARALLEL TO. HIGHWAY •5HOWS EXTENT OF- LAND. TO-BE- DEDICATED-FOR SERVICE ROAD BY-THE.- OWNER WHEN LAND. IS. PLATTED- NOTE ff- ACQUISITION OF. IMPROVED PROPERTIES, NOT REQUIRED-FOR FIRST.STAGE- f CONSTRUCTION•WILL - BE DELAYED UNTIL NEEDED. i m - . _{ i _• 1 EytEO .LINE ' / { `L\ � w LO• CHAMBE AIM •FIELD• g �~ j� \�\ I, CITY 1 ' (I LIMITS } ITT O` A REA '-,,FOR AIRPORT EXPANSION�� • ff . BLOOMINGTON AVENUE TO STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 55 ? necessary because in the deferred land acquisition areas are various buildings, the acquisition of which should be deferred to the time when increase of traffic would warrant the expense. C. At a later time, depending upon increase of traffic, the remaining lands to complete the right of way would be acquired. - This would include lands now occupied by buildings. D. The construction of the second roadway, E. At each stare'of construction such traffic control facilities, signs and signalwould be installed as conditions then warrant, - At some future time at main points of intersection, there may be need to provide for grade separation structures. In each of these stages of construction, there will be required the cooperation of the riinneapolis-- St.Paul Metropolitan Airports. Commission, the Board of County Commissioners and.the affected villages of Richfield and Edina, General Estimates of Costs_, project extending from 'Yest Belt Line, Highway No.100, to Trunk Highway No.55, Hiawatha Avenue. - Based on the valuations of the assessors for tax pur- poses on the lands affected by this project, and using general figures now available but not basest on detail designs and quantity estimates, the following general estimates of cost have been prepared. Land Acquisition, First Stage: Assessor's gull and True Values: Buildings (28) 05075 Land u57,960 Recent experience indicates that these figures should be multiplied by ratios as follows: Buildings 05,975 x 2 a 71,950 Land %�M,960 x 3 - 173,880 %x245, 830 Revised Estimate u2461000 Construction Costs First Stage: 7.75 Idiles -- Highways- (2 i Black top) u362,000 1.06 11ile s- Service Roads -( 221 Black top) 46, 000 Drainage and fine grading 42.000 4 0 , 000 Total, First Stage Costs: 'Landsand buildings Q246,000 Grading, surfacing, drainage, land., scaping, etc. t,�4 0 000 Total N_ 9 ,000 --3- i L In formulating a program for carrying out the work outlined in the above,estimates, it is desirable to proceed on the basis that all of the lands included in first stage acqui.- sition be acquired at one time4' This is necessary because building construction is proceeding in the direction of the right of way proposed. Only by,early gequis.ition of the pro" perty required can this project be carried out economically: The construction included in the first stage can be carried out in subdivisions or parts of the whole permitting the costs thereof to be spread over a period of years. However, the gro4:rth of the south half of the city and the metropolitan area, the expansion of the airport and increasing traffic indicate the need for the earliest possible completion of this project, This brief report indicates that with land acqui- sition at approximately 42462000 and first stage construction at 4450,0001 a total of "a696,000 is involved. This sum can be broken down as necessary to meet budgetary limitations4 The urgent need is to acquire the vacant land. There- , after construction can be scheduled so as to extend those costs over 'trhatever term of years will conform with the budget limit- ations of the city and county, This report conforms to and further illustrates the report on "Program for the Acquisition -of. Right of :ray Needed for the Future Construction of Trunk H gh *.gays and r-lajor Arterial Streets" dated August 18, 194. November-289 1949 City Planning Commission #339 City Hall PZinneapolis, Minnesota S -4- L. P. PEDERSON, ENGINEER HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 440 C O U R T H O U S E Minneapolis 15, Minnesota 2 9 January 9, 1957 Mr. Warren C. Hyde, Manager Village of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Minneapolis 24, Minnesota GENEVA 4841 - 4342 Dear Mr. Hyde: Re: 62nd Street Crosstown Highway In regard to the future construction of the proposed 62nd Street Crosstown Highway from Xerxes Avenue to State Aid Road 18 this letter will confirm my statement to your Council Committee on the evening of Monday January 7th2 1957, that Hennepin County will procure all the right of way from Xerxes'Avenue to the Minneapolis Northfield & Southern Railroad; the Village of Edina to procure the necessary right of way from the Minneapolis Northfield & Southern Railroad to State Aid Road No. 18; and that the County of Hennepin will bear the entire cost of construction. The aforementioned right of way does not include the portion that will be needed for the interchange at Trunk Highway 100 as it is anticipated that this will be.procured by the State Highway Department. Yours very truly, L. P. Pederson County Engineer LPP :db. cc :Commissioner Ainsworth loo&ls� i950. 16.7 / Dr • Reu )en F. Erickson i ,r �� � — k/� • G _fro 8 Merr+bers of the Villlage Co.•_rci.lo Subject: Crosstown Higheaay Gentlemen : Tai-ay I had an .oppor'Guri_ty to discuss the crosstown highL-aa.y with fir• Zimmerman,, Chief Engineer of the Deal- L.-n -L. , TAr, Torgersony Assistant Coirmissioner of ;State Highways, Kr. Peterson., County Hig`.hwaa.,y E., gineer, and Nlr Hugo Erickson; 'iinnea,polis GJ- i EnO-neer„ f pointed out to the,-m the results of '.the. discussion! L >:e ad at CoUTIC. -�l_ m. -ea :irkry idonday ?bight and told rietn ery firirrl� that we 3nus'�• have 0c: "1'�l t. 'tJ'ic rJ;l 'j i ,jjc -ci`. by Ccto. ?mss'. t .1..". ord r u t you call -roach a i° -- - ' _. cec�.sion' as. +.o. Lrhether tool approve the project and get the .necessa.ry .ar_rangements under ,gay for acquiring the "i �nd'. necessary which is now effected Iby ;E,he ban on bu-i l ding permits expiring October .l o r'ir- Peterson will get to me' quite soon the official '.acts of the County Board o_° a week 'or so ago and Mr. Erickson File. send 111.0 a cop -g of the reee- action of -i.Ihe Minneapolis Council. requesti -ng designation of the rro,msed route L- %s a Sic? le A d -o o Mr. `z,ilTnerinan and ?'iii'. ` or.gerson are goiY?g to at•temVr, 'Go secure :"�.nal Ci r.i. sions necessary to get the d e iL;n? 0.' '' he co)-,e eal° all l ig ?wq P 100 We already hs."te rather c +1STiplet- ntia-,:)s on t1he seG''l",:i_o rom Xerxes to 100 up 1,0 elite lir. itti of the cl overleii o ?gar, s eter°son .-w.il.l also have available a general proposal as to the route from 100 to t 'ne "Tillage limits. Mr. Peterson said that the proposed financing of the highway would be as follows- (I am not certain as to the split between County, State and Federal) 1- The County would bay improved land necessary for the right of way (I am not certain whether this would include all platted land or ?•jhether it will be limited to lands upon which homes are now built.) 2-- The Village would acq_ui.re land needed for the highway which is now unrlat-'Cle . territory, by dedication. 3— Construction costs L,aould be paid by the County or the State n-nd the Federal government if the State is successful in having the road designated as s?. Federal urban,. highL-,ray. It now appears very likely that sixch designation can be made. i Irh other Lords, the Village viould be -faced w_t � relatively !Winos expenditures ;rah rel at,ion to the Metal cost of the project. You -. i.11 recall that the State will buy all .ja aper'ty necessary for Uie cloverleaf at 100 and pay construc,ion costs of the cloverleaf. I pointed out to 1'ir• Peterson that .you :were willing to have a. sF :.vial rneeting on the .Covanty. proposal for France Ave.nue from 54th to FL;th and the crosstown, and Mir. Peterson has suggested 'T`hursday, Auvust 230 �IITIL YOU PLEASE NOT_.I. T!i, IF YOU CANNTO ATTEND -THE MEETING HERE AT THE VI "UACE HALL AT 7:30 P.M. ON TH'JiiSDAAY A.Ur UST 23 0 v3 Warren C. H�,de, . �vrCil:B �'�t•� �s.?..b� Village Manager,. CC: Erickson X Albrecht, �y / Peterson, defald. �i�.. �. � C�d�ef �dp�a�e3r►� � �� ��� fur � ins �� �� ice` Wit. � ham,!# ��3�' a '�� �1�3�t�;1► +��' � �tse� t ���L � � ��� �it5. tit �s � cad � �i� �t ��e '� +� �ts� Cx� ms's '�� �� +�I� �� o� t� !fie �t11. �r .d,3� ��►!. �� 3�tes o�P ��� g�par� r.�D.t �� �qg _ - �► % �. �+�s �� the � d d that i�� , i� was mot � � p�.t3�n to � iMF � �' ��L LPt�r o� .�i�tG fit !►� �r i�t to► L3a� •ne �►�rar add 4�►t tM �� �� �� mid � sl,� 3aad �, tl� �� �� #�� i �.'� '� � Lh� tom. � � vx�t � tP� L� � �� c� cap r�o� �� axe itt � �a�.iti.�t '� �t� ai �� � t#�v �� � ruble �� of t� ��►. a� Lh� �� �. t� aka ttha �1g� r�'iti�t t4� off' ohs Z'�w ,1fJ� �!, Y�It O� �1! �' � ��1 CQl�q�' ��$! ,�0l�► � • � I�QI�d �� � i�d/ '� $�!� �0lIQXJ$ frhs �1�it�133g �'i 3t �' �o�o��l �+og►� � times 3��a�n� t3lC �r#p► 3b9 t� H3��' 3.�DQ '�, dr�,w�s �tirrs deg d�► zx� �r ez3sL axe th+� �r �.�L�n o�� asp pstews or �iQ ia�b. � 4�r rriait�g. �t�t ' ��� Fla �ra.�e� 3�pst+r' ��. o� �� ors �f �+�� �o�.]. �d 1 ars f��y �to� of #fie �at� �ie��tUr� in � dasi� b� its � r� derdvp c�leani �.� � ss�'t.�sl, R.�C rr� � m►pet�3�'�.e�+;� �s �otsil� �iatr� afire �� ���' � % � ft�;,�7' � �" GO�►. � "� t3lCiYd b� abt t� sSOEIp�►i�t ��h �3�► �.3a� c� ter t��pm � �Sb �s �h�,� Ott t� � �! € snsx it �„ � c ,� �b3as �� � nu t ©.. sl�g�+�t►�,y' �lte :� F ���• . 7 L. Po ZIOMMM page 2 r Whey wit U be cC►vonieut fbr you to meet with re oentativan of Mina, at vhIch 9 time you could give u® the inftmtLon nmded by us? Vogt trdly youras Qiil® tt��er. WCRIB `i-'l llage of Ec- r.a January 9 -, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council Fromi Village Manager Sub3eat: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right- of-way. On July 25, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up.until January 1, 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long- considered 1162nd Street" Cross -town highway. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the.proposed right -of -way during the past six months, In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we .could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During.the past six months there have been several important developments.. full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized . the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956. On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk. Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right -of -way, which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can-be narrowed at- certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right- ofTway would include all necessary.ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of.traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes., two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes. At a 250 foot width right -of -ray, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. -1- -d'1.11age of 'Et _in.a January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right - of -way. On July 251, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 11 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long- considered 42nd Street" Cross -town highway. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way during the past six months°. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments, full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits -until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956. On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right -of -way, which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right-of-way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes. At a 250 foot width right-of-way, Proposal k would require taking only four or five homes. DR! 'j 11age of Rcina January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right - of -way. On July 25,1955, acting upon'the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 1, 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long- considered 1162nd Street" Cross -town highway. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way during the past six months. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy.the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of,presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy, During the past six months there have been several important developments full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your - further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 19560, On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite.center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four .proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No, 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right -of -way, which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can-be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions'of existing homes. The 300 foot right-of-way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes. At a 250 foot width right-of-way, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. -1- `d l.age •� �_ E, `lna January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right - of -way. On July 25, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 1,1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long - considered 42nd Street" Cross -town highway. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way during the past six months. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments, full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956, On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four .proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area.taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right -of -way, which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right -o.f way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is,firmiy believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center divisions The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and-at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes4 Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes. At a 250 foot.width right -0f way, Proposal 4 would require taking only four.or.five. homes. DR! `v`.i.l age of mina January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right - of -way. On July 251, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 1, 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long- considered 162nd Street" Cross -town highway, There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way during the past six months. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments, full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your Ifurther authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956. On October. 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con - templates'a 300 foot wide right-of-way., which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right -of -way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this .proposed highway should be a limited access road.' The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes. At a 250 foot width right -of -way, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. BE village of Eaina January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status'of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right- . of -way. On July 25,. 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 1, 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long - considered 1162nd Street" Cross -town highway. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right -of- -way during the past six months, In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built.homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 19560 On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes) which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four .proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19..1955 field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is.the most feasible and-most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right -of -way, which is undoubtedly more than ample, and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right-of-way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the.taking of ten homes. At a 250 foot width right -of -ray, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. a1M "v. 11age of in.a January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable;Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report. on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right- of -way. On July 25, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 1, 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area.proposed as of that time for the route of the long- considered 162nd Street" Cross -town highway. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted_ property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way during the past six months. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building-permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956• On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue.and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four .proposals was based on an aerial 'survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right-of-way., which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right -of -way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it.is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for'six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at, France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes, At a 250 foot width right -of -ray, Proposal 4 would require taking only four-or five homes. 11- 'V-111age of t;%�ina January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and,Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right - of -way. On July 25, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 11 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long - considered 1162nd Street" Cross -town highway. There have been a,few requests for permits and some efforts to sub- divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way during the past six months. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general .path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past'six months there have been several important developmentsf full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having_ authorized the holding up-.of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 11 1956. On October 241 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routesp which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100: The engineering on these four .proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No: 4 is the.most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right -of way, which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right-of-way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it.is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six, moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided; When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations.proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from.Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes, At a 250 foot width right- of -wayy Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. -1- 'v i 11age o.:' "Ecina January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village. Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposes right- of -wadi. On July 25,1955p acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 1, 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long- considered 142nd Street" Cross -town highway, There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the. proposed right -of -way during the past six months. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the .parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956• On October, 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a.proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials`. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right =of way, which is undoubtedly more than ample, and which can be marrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right -of way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 .foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4'would require the taking of ten homes. At a 250 foot width right -of -way, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. -1- r .li.age of mina January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right= of -way. On July 25, 19.55, acting upon the information available,at that time, the Village Council 7authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 1, 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long- considered 1162nd Street!' Cross -town highway. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right -of- -way during the past six months. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not' issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments, full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956. On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four .proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right -of -way, which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right-of-way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet.' At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes. At A 250''foot width right -of -way, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. -1- January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right - of -way. On July 25, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 1, 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of,that time for the route of the long - considered 1162nd Street" Cross -town highway. There have been a few, requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way during the past six months.. In practically all 'instances, we have been able to.satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments, full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another .nine months, or until October 1, 1956,. On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do.the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four .proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right -of way, which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right -of =way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road, The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France.. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes, At a 250 foot width right -of -way, Proposal 1� would require taking only four or five homes. -1- J. E. SCHELEN G. M. ORR G. A ORR ENGINEERING CO. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Federal 8.4706 1004 MARQUETTE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS 3, MINN. September o, 1956 Warren C. Hyde Village Manager Edina, Minnesota Re: Cross —town Highway in Edina Right of Way Map Enclosed herewith is one copy of Right of Way Map showing property affected by the above improvement. This is the map that is being furnished in accordance with my letter of August 29, 1956. EGIL WEFALD EW:bk Enclosure J. E. SCHELEN G. M. ORR G. M. ORR ENGINEERING CO. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1 004 MAROUETT AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS 3, MINN. Federal 8 -4706 February 23, 1956 Air. L. P. Pedersen Hennepin County Highway Engineer Court House Minneapolis, Minnesota Re,,, . Cro a a Toga Hl ghwa y &%na Dear Mr, Pedersen: On February 140 1958, you were given the following items on the above project: (a) Layout No. 3-A - Alternate Aliment at Highway X6100. (b) Layout No, 4, Drawing No. 1 - 1/2 Mile West of Highway #100 to Xerxes Avenue. This shots the Alignment whioh is recommended and was tentatively approved by the Unnesota Department of Highways. Also shows schematic layout of traffic interchange. (o) Layout No. 5 - &owsAlternate Alignment of Cross Town Highway Intersection Highway #100, and also geometric layout of proposed trafflo interchange. (d) Profile and Tentative grade Line of Layout No. 40 (e) Profile and Tentative Grade Line of Layout No. S. (f) Typical Cross - Section of Roadway. Submitted herewith are the following items: (1) Design Criteria►. (2) Supflement to Typical .Croce- Section of Roadway (For 2DO R /w) (3) New R/W leap - Layout No, 4, Drawing No, 2, The Alignment as shown on Layout No, 4, Typical Cross- Seotion of Road- way and Design Criteria are recommended for approval. j I Mr. L. P. Pederson Cont' d... rebruary 23, 1966 X1441y advise this office - in Writing as to your approval 9r ch®nge® which you may sn gest:''- Also advioo if You concur in the design of a PO 't, and. Cement' GO[l'Cpate Pavement;,., Yours eery truly, 00 xe. G NSMNG COMPANY . aXo /alp Baal.. J ORR. C.F,6053 T0161 HILGHIIVAY 013MIGN CRITERIA Design Speed 50 MPH 2, Design Hour 3,: Intersection X Roads '"nat Termini Sign C;O_ -,�Itgamant coritorol 11a.xjanum Degree c/�vxve 0o Use Spiral Trairialtion CLirve 01, Mialmam Degree of C".rve Super Elevated d, Mlnimv.m Transverse Slope ,Soper e., Maximum Transverse Slope Super Ratfe of Ch'ange, of Super minimum D,�stlance Fetween Super Curves 6., Gradients ax i ra V. m 4,, 0% MInIMUM 005� I. ?0 Non Passing Seat Distance 400, 6, PassIng SIght Distance 1500V 9" cx'oss Section of - Roadway DIVIded Roadway 2/11/56 50 00' 10 300 00 3o 0 03, 0" 08, I In 200 WIdth of Roadway ",(Pr sent) 24001 W:Wth of Roadwp-y (Future) Number of Lanes tPreaeat) Number of Lanes fFutc re) Tralof le mane . IlIdth 121 Curb t,-, Gutter Section: Width 205 °' (outer Lane Only) Curb Section WIdth 0051 ( r Lane Future) ParkIng Lane Wild 51, Ian Width (Present) 3?, 0 AacUvan 10,dth (Future) 13,,W Outer separation 20 Frontage e R Qr°i. d 211 Border 10 CrosE-Trans erne Slope 0,015 i hpex of CirO1141$ . 1,0o Horizontal,. Clearances Edge of Pa ezient to Lett Ourb 3,09 (Includes ifOuntm able Curb) Edge of Pnvep�n-ent to Right Curb -005 (Includes 0Q "Gote ° �t mountable Curb) Edge of Pavement-to X10. 1,1, 117 (Right Lane) Edge oil Pa W ernen t to 4 -d awl 1 4"59 (Left Llr ally. ) Face of Curb to Wall Number of Traffic Lanes 1.2" (each Structure) e) Number of Parking Lanes 1 ' ( a & c h SM ixc.` urn) Distance I3et Teen- utzluctv.rvs Varlrable gdge o'x' PaveEi;ena. to flare of Guvb . W ( 'Left Lane) Face of Curb to RP-11 l� � 1,20 Horizontal Clearances - Under Passes 6 - 12¢ P t8, re Q b) Width of Curb and Gutter Section :TRIght j4)z c-) 2053 (0) No", of Parking Lanes Wld4h 2 a � d) Divided Roar uay ire e) Median MM'p (f) Pei r 4Q (g'.) ?[eft Edge of Pavement to Face of PeIr O (,Ih Lel't' Edge Of tQ CLUb 3, C, Viount- able Cvrb Along Inner or Future Tr ff -ins) aic Lr- Q) Right ;,,�dge of Pave�.nen-t to Psbut,, 11,10 w k) Right. Edge of Pavement to Cuvb 9"W 130 Shoulder Slopes 14, Back Slopeo 4*.l 15� Fill Slopes 16, Ditch Section 1,Jheve Niecessavy 170. Median e 18 Type pf Curb 1.1aum62iblz I(QuZar Lane) 19, Fiigh% of, 7NIa-v 10. d Via 201, B,:vIdge Load Desisr. 2!t,, W'hsre Fill Se-ct an X - s ):,.equjred LMm .note Fvontage Road. 22,, Valley View F'Lomd HamlP (a) Destga 1571-peed 30 andu 140 Vt. (c) Gxzadlents (Max , m 5;;, (d) T;mnsveree Slope (YmIn: 0, 10 f t. (Max.) 0.12 f%. ( o ) Ramp .tom wiremeal, 'Wildth 24, f ZI,, (I way - 2 Isme pan s sl n, g) 23. ConstruclUion Details 1. Roadways (m) 91, UnIfov-1-a C012c.r.814'e Paveillent (b) 1511 141m, $aa-d-a—vavel 30-3sse (c) F--.%,Cava'ee 1,01 sub-Base for unlfcrm coopoc- Conerve Our& QtKr AeAga 5618 (Outar Lane'�' 11, Emergency Stopping or parking L"anie (ay 6q Gravel We (b) I" Top. Soil - Mulched A Seedeid (c) -Gravel ShovIders, (Twer Lane) 0,251 Topsoil (b) Sad XV 510pas (a) 0.251 Topsoil (b) Sod V. Frontage Road (a) SOUMAOSS Seal Coat b) lea Plant MIXed =U21nous Surface 13 Road mixed BOUMIno"s Base 5" Gravel Ase 0) 123 Sand-Naval W&Rnoe. I �d`1.11age of Euina January 9, 1956 To: -The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right - of -way. On July 251, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 11 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long- considered 1162nd Street" Cross -town highway, There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right-of-way during the past six months„ In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of.the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such .a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956. On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary.work to,provide.a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals.was based on .an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right-of-way., which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking .portions of existing homes. The 300 foot would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes, At a 250 foot width right-of-way, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. Die . k A new design for the grade separation between the Cross -town route and Highway 100, which includes the area between Ryan on the east, Warren on the west, just north of 64th on the south and just north of 62nd on the north, as shown on Proposal 4, requires taking only nine homes, instead of eighteen as planned originally. This means that not more than nineteen and possibly only thirteen hohies, would have to be taken to provide a modern high- way of almost two miles in length. Unless the ban on building permits is continued, however, many more homes will'be built in the near future which would have to be acquired later when all final arrangements for the proposed highway are completed. This, of course, would make the,cost of the project considerably higher. Both the County Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways, State of Minnesota, have approved the alignment shown on Plan 4. The proposed Cross -town route is not a new idea. It was proposed in a report dated November 10, 1949, by the Minneapolis City Planning Commission, which suggested the need for such a route to connect Tank Highway 55 on the east and Trunk Highway 100 on the west via the South City limits, or 62nd Street. The Minneapolis City Council in 1950 directed the City Engineer to make field surveys, to discuss the need for the route with'the County, Airport Commission and Edina and Richfield, and approved the route in principle. On September 30, 1955, the Minneapolis City Council authorized the initiation of condemna- tion for the route from Portland Avenue east to 46th Avemue. The Minneapolis City Council has also authorized the withholding of building permits along a portion of the proposed route. This action resulted in a builder going to court to force the issuance of a ,permit. On December 6, 1955 Judge Carroll, in the case of Ole Hansen vs. City of Minneapolis, continued the matter until September 28, 1956. It is believed that the judge felt the city should not be compelled at this time to issue a building permit which would allow the improvement of property that the city might later condemn and thus put the taxpayers to an extra cost. The case was continued upon condition that if by September 28, the city had proceeded with reasonable dispatch and was making progress towards the con- demnation and completion of the project, the writ of mandamus would not issue.. It is the hope of at least one chief official for the city that some right -of- way can be purchased in 1956. The County Board highway committee is definitely in favor of expediting the acquisition of the necessary land and starting construction as soon as poss- ible. This committee has authorized the County Highway Engineer to coordinate the activities of the various agencies concerned. The State Highway Department is prepared to take its proper role of acquiring and building the cloverleaf at Highway 100 as soon as it is convinced the County, City, and Villages concerned are serious about the route. The State has already ordered work to be done on designing the separation at Trunk High- way 100, and while there may be some minor changes in the final design from that shown on Plan 4, ti:e elongated cloverleaf proposed is generally accept- able, and State officials feel Plan 4 is the most economical and has proper design. -2- As the matter stand's now, the route within the limits of Edina would be financed as foll6wst The Village would be required to buy the right-of-way from where the proposed route -intersects Valley View Road west of Highway 100 at Warren Avenue to the point where V lley View Road extended intersects the proposed route between Brookview Avenue and Peacedale Avenue, with the excep- tion of the land within the cloverleaf area at Highway 100. The cloverleaf and land necessary for it would be a State cost. The County, with some State funds, would pay for construction. It is hoped the County would be able to budget at least some of the construction costs in the 1958 budget. If, how- ever, Congress passes a revised and expanded Federal program designed to aid urban projects of this type, in connection with the President's request for heavier Federal finan©ing of highways, then the cost to the Village would probably be reduced, as the cost of the necessary land would probably be a participating cost. The above discussion relates primarily to that portion of the proposed high - way from Highway 100 east to Xerxes. The whole program contemplates continu- ing the road to Lake Minnetonka, and while construction west of Warren Avenue is not likely for at least five years, with practically no building in the proposed right of way at present in the West portion of Edina, efforts should be made to secure this right -of -way as soon as possible and the ban on build- ing should apply to the proposed location throughout Edina. Efforts should be made immediately to have the.necessary engineering done on the balance of the proposed right-of-way west of Warren Avenue. If the project was considered necessary in 1949, by the Minneapolis City Plan Commission, after a thorough study, it is even more necessary now, 7 years later, with the tremendous building developments in the south suburban area. The Metropolitan Sports Stadium, and the Southdale Shopping Center, which probably would not have been built as far south as they are unless there had been a terrific amount of home building in the general area, only - intensify the need. There are many advantages to Edina to have a route designed for tomorrowts traffic crossing the Village from east to west. Such a road would relieve 50th Street, which is already badly crowded, and it would make it possible for Valley View Road, 66th Street and to some extent 70th Street, to be purely residential streets. It is believed that the number of homes needed for Proposal 4 represents the absolutely minimum that can be taken. On the basis of the above facts, it is therefore recommended that you approve in principle Plan 4 and authorize the continued holding of building permits and subdivision plats within the limits of the proposed right -of -way until October 1, 1956. If you concur, we should then secure as soon as possible accurate estimates on the costs of the land involved and construction costs and work with the County, the City, and the State to expedite final deci- sions, in order that the owners of both homes and vacant property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way may be given definite information within a reasonable time as to whether their property is to be taken and, if it is, how much they can expect to be paid, when they can expect to receive the money, and from whom they will be paid. 4 J. E. SCHELEN S. M. ORR Federal 8.4706 G. M. ORR ENGINEERING CO. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1004 MARGUETT AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS 3, MINN. January 9, 1956 Mr. L. F. Pederson County Highway Engineer Hennepin County Court House Minneapolis, Minnesota Lear Mr. Pederson: Preliuminary studies have been completed on the location of the proposed Cross -Town Highway between 63rd Street and County High- way No. 39, 63rd Street and Normandale Road and 62nd Street and Xerxes Avenue. Four layouts arebeing presented for your considera- tion, together with our recommendation as to the most feasible route. Layout, No. 1 e oca'on Is the original plan or study made by the Hennepin County highway Department about two years ago. At the time of this study it is understood that the area between Normandale Road and Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to 64th Street was not developed to the extent it is today and there were relatively few houses. If this location were used today, it would be necessary to remove residences as follows: No. Residence At proposed interchange at Normandale Road ~17 Ryan Avenue to 1/2 block Fast of St. Johnfs Ave. Near Erookview Avenue 2 At 62nd Street and Xerxes Avenue 2 Total Residences Affected 36 �Layout No. 2 This ayou was developed from an Aerial Survey made October 19, 1955, and shows all existing buildings in the area affected by this location. Houses which would be affected by 1% at proposed interchange at Normandale Between Ryan Avenue 1/2 block East of Near Brookview Avenue At 62nd Street and Xerxes.Avenue Total Residences Affected 1955• Vout No. 2 Road 17 St. John's Ave .. - 9 1 2 29 La out No. This layou • also developed from Aerial Survey of October 190 0 ; Nr. L. P. Pederson Page No. 2 Houses which would be affected by Layout-No. At proposed interchange of Normandale Road Between Ryan Avenue and 1/2 block Bast of St. (in addition there would be 1 shed) Near Brookview Avenue At 62nd Street and Xerxes Avenue Total Residences Affected January 9, 1956 3 John's Ave. 17 0 2 22 Layout, No 4 Layout developed from Aerial Survey of October 19, 19550 Rouses which would be affected by Layout No. 4 At, proposed interchange at . Normaundale - Road 9 Between Ryan Avenue and 1/2 block East of St. John's Ave. 3, Near Brookview Avenue 0 At 62nd Street and Xerxes Avenue 2 Total Residences Affected T9 D�aximum number residences affected if right of way is 3001 wide instead of 200' would be 19. The estimate of residences to be moved are based upon a right of way width of 200' for Layouts No +s. 1, 2 and 3, and is so shown. Itayoxit No. 4 shows . a 300' right of way. There the estimate of residences to be'moved are for a 200' and 300' right of way. The alignment (as shown on Layout No. 4) of the Cross -Town Highway crossing Nolmmdale Road (Highway No. 100 has been tenta- tively approved by.the Minnesota Department -of Highways.. The-Inter- change-is shown to indicate the area which . y be affected-If a similar design 3e constructed- The int or L Wout. Xo «, 4. , i4t�t `t e'en approved day the . ;nne bta', Department of Highways,, but does'- conform to" design disadeaed ;'with represedtatives of the Highway Department. Since it is expected that the Minnesota Depart- ment of Highways will construct said interchange, the final design -will be their responsibility. ' The aliment of the Cross -Town Highway as shown on Layout No. 4 is recommended for acceptance on.the basis of the least right of way costs-and the min9.mum disturbance to the area in which it is located. It is proposed that this highway shall have limited access ,and that t1fo points of access shall be, at NormAndale Road and Valley View'Road. A grade separation is recommended at France avenue with no access. No recommendations are being made as to the method access at the termIni since studies, beyond' the, termini have not been com- pleted. Mr. L. F. Pederson Page I406. 3 January. 9, 1936 The construction costs for each of the Four_ layouts would be approximately the same, not including the cost of right of way. The grading cost on Layout .Ko. 1 could be higher than the other lay- outs since there is a greater sip and lak,e area to arose. It Is recomended that service drives be constructed as follows: 1. North Side, -- Wil.ryan Avenue to. Josephine Avenue .2. North ride . - Vftn Avenue to St. John's Avenue 3. '9006 214e ..:. VOL' 30d Sere ®t ;far= .OQU44- 8bOq X39 to Josephine 'Avenue 4. South. Side -- Ryan Avenue -to 64th 'Street near Concord) Avenue 5. On.the North and South Sidee service drives are not recommended as this 'area Is not developed and there -is no 1me4iate need for service drives. Sdr- vice drives along this section soul& be laid out and .constructed when thie area is being developed. It is rec amended that the roradway' be designed as fallowe s 1. Distance. between center .lines of traffio lanes 610. 2. 2 - 121 line traffic lanes in daCh dir90tion. (1 additional 121. line traffic In each direction may be'constructed on inside when traffic wararants. ) 3. Conatruat mountable.00narete.curb'along outer lane on each side to provide access .'to emergeiwy stopping lanes. 4. Center island width sing 4 line traffic lanes 371. When 6 line traffie'lanes are provided the center island-width will -%e 130 5. Width of :service drives 34�' The preliminary estimated cost of conotiadtion is ad follows 1'. Roadway grading, drainage and surfacing. 2. Construct 2 bridges Total Estimated Cost (.prelim lnar' y) t O,:lw Submitted by a. �1d3NESgIATa Co.* M Orr cc . Warren Hyde Village Manager . Herman Outtman € a a19 ♦� ", rp, *Co -vqi Ar i STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS 1246 UNIVERSITY AVENUE ST. PAUL 4 December 30, 1955 Mr. Warren Hyde Village Manager of Edina Minneapolis 10, Minnesota Dear Mr. Hyde: - Re: Route of Cross -Town Highway Adjacent to Normandale Road (T.H. 100) / We are enclosing herewith a plat showing the alignment of the proposed cross -town highway (State Aid Road No. 62) between a point near the west line of Section 4, Township 116 North,.Range 21 West, to a point near the center line of St. Johns Avenue ex- tended. This alignment has the approval of the Minnesota!Highway Department. A layout of the proposed grade separation between State Aid Road No. 62 and T.H. No. 100 is being made using the alignment as shown on the enclosed plat. LPZ/EC Attach 0 LETTERS FROM STATE AND COUNTY CONCRRNING CROSS -TOWN HIGHWAY From L.P. Zimmerman, Chief Engineer, Minnesota Highway Department Dated December 30 - -"We are enclosing herewith a plat showing the alignment of the proposed cross -town highway (State Aid Road No. 62) between a point near the west line .of Section 4, Township 116 North, Range 21 West, to a point near the center line of St.Johns.Avenue extended. This,alignment.has the approval of the Minnesota Highway Department." From L. P. Pederson, County Engineer - As a result of the meeting that was held at the G.M..Orr Company on Wednesday, December 28th this letter is to advise u that this Department accepts the point of intersection (PlI.ron the center line of the present Trunk Highway 100 'and the proposed 62nd Street Cross Town Highway as a definite reference point for the future construction of the proposed Cross Town Highway. - Dated Dec.29,1955. Form 306 10M 6 -61 46839 �7 • ri OOOfff ORDER NO. 23952 It is hereby ordered that the designation of State Aid Road No. 623, as made by resolutions adopted--on November 24'; 1953 ",: by the HENNEPIN County Board, on November 27; 1953, by the City Council of the City of Minneapolis, and on December 14, 1953, by the Village Council of the Village of Edina, be and hereby is approved.' Beginning at Trunk Highway No. 100 near the junction with County Road No. 39 in'the Village of Edina; thence easterly along Valley View Road to West 62nd Street, along West 62nd Street to State Aid Road No. 17, at the junction of West 62nd Street and France Avenue. Beginning again on State Aid Road No. 17,' at the junction of West 60th Street and France Avenue; thence east along West 60th Street to the east corporate limits of the Village of.Edina, which point is also the West corporate limits . of the City of Minneapolis; thence continuing east along West 60th Street in the City of Minneapolis to Sunrise Drive; thence along Sunrise Drive to West 58th Street; thence east along West 58th Street to Trunk Highway No. 65, at the junction of West 58th Street and Lyndale- Avenue. Beginning again on Trunk Highway No..65, at- the junction of West 61st Street and Tyndale Avenue; thence east along West "61st Street and East 61st Street to Chicago Avenue; thence north along Chicago Avenue to East 58th Street; thence east along East 58th Street to State Aid Road No. 53, near the junction of East 58th Street and 46th Avenue South, and there "terminating. Dated : September 1, 1954- M. J. Hoffmann Commissioner of Highways STATE OF I%HNNES0TA, COUNTY OF RAMSEY, I, M. J. Hoffmann, Commissioner" of Highways of the State- of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the above and foregoing copy of order No. 23952 with the original thereof on file in my office and in my custody, and the foregoing is a true and correct copy thereof and transcript therefrom. .In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto subscribed a fixed my official seal at the City f St. Paul, Minnesota, this day of 196 Co s 0 Highways JOSWWH A. HADLEY Oro. V. LIES D. J. GHANA RAYMOND H. HEGNA CARMEN L. JACOBSON KEITH M. STIDD ROLF O. •LEN ASSISTANTS �il a Mr. Hugo Erickson, City Engineer, Minneapolis, Minn. Dear Mr. Erickson: Cat .# of Attmap tilts OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CHARLES A. SAWYER. CITY ATTORNEY PALMER S. RASMUSSON. FIRST ASSISTANT 2 .41W 6 December ", 1955. In re: Cie Hanson - vs- CRIMINAL DIVISION LEO. P. WHALE MILTON GERSNIN ASSISTANTS F. C. AUSTIN INVESTIGATOR H. F. GOODIN SA /ETY DIRECTOR City of Minneapolis At the conclusion of the mandamus hearing yesterday before Judge Carroll, the court continued the matter until September 28, 1976. It is the thinking of tt�e judge that t�,e city should not be compelled at this time to issue a building permit, which would permit the improvement of property that the city might later condemn and thus put the taxpayers to an extra cost. It was also his thought that a property owner should not be unduly delayed or hampered in making effective use of ills pro- perty. Therefore, he continued the matter to September 289 1956, upon condition that if by that time t 'r,e city had pro- ceeded with reasonable dispatch and was making progress towards the condemnation and completion of this project, tine writ of mandamus would not issue, but that if satisfactory progress were not made, he would then issue the writ directing the City of Minneapolis to give Mr. Hanson a building permit. I am writing this letter anything further with which we free to call. DJS: MRS for your guidance. If there is can assist you, please feel Yours very truly, J. ama, Assis t City Attorney. C I T Y 0 F L A K E S `� .,Rage- - f Ecd' na January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village -Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway; and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right - of -way. On July 25, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 1; 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long - considered 1162nd Street" Cross -town highway. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right-of-way during the past six months. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956. On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed.grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right -of -way, which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right -of way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes. At a 250 foot width right -of -way, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. -1- A new design for the grade separation between the Cross -town route and Highway 100, which includes the area between Ryan on the east, Warren on the west, just north of 64th on the south and just north of 62nd on the north, as shown on Proposal 4, requires taking only nine homes, instead of eighteen as planned originally. This means that not more than nineteen and possibly only thirteen homes, would have to be taken to provide a modern high- way of almost two miles in length. Unless the ban on building permits is continued, however, many more homers will be built in the near future which would have to be acquired later when all final arrangements for the proposed highway are completed. This, of course, would make the cost of the project considerably higher. Both the County Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways, State of Minnesota, have approved the alignment shown on Plan 4. The proposed Cross -town route is not a new idea. It was proposed in a report dated November 10, 1949, by the Minneapolis City planning Commission, which suggested the need for such a route to connect Trunk Highway 55 on the east and Trunk Highway 100 on the west via the South City limits, or 62nd Street. The Minneapolis City Council in 1950 directed the City Engineer to make field surveys, to discuss the need for the -route with the County, Airport Commission and Edina and Richfield, and approved the route in principle, On September 30, 1955, the Minneapolis City Council authorized the initiation of condemna- tion for the route from,Portland Avenue east to 46th Avemue. The Minneapolis City Council has also authorized the withholding of building permits along a portion of the proposed route. This action resulted in a builder going to court to force the issuance of a permit. On December 6, 1955 Judge Carroll, in the case of Ole Hansen vs. City of Minneapolis, continued the matter until September 28, 1956. It is'believed that the judge felt the city should not be compelled at this time to issue a building permit which would allow the improvement of property that the city might later condemn and thus put the taxpayers to an extra cost. The case was continued upon condition that if by September 28, the city had proceeded with reasonable dispatch and was making progress towards the con- demnation and completion of the project, the writ of mandamus would not issue. It is the hope of at least one chief official for the city that some right -of- way can be purchased in 1956 The County Board highway committee is definitely in favor of expediting the acquisition of the necessary land and starting construction as soon as poss- ible. This committee has authorized the County Highway Engineer to coordinate the activities of the various agencies concerned. The State Highway Department is prepared to take its proper role of acquiring and building the cloverleaf at Highway 100,as soon as it is convinced the County, City, and Villages concerned are serious about the route. The State has already ordered work to be done on designing the separation at Trunk High- way 100, and while there may be some minor changes in the final design from that shown on Plan 4, the elongated cloverleaf proposed is generally accept- able, and State officials feel Plan 4 is the most economical and has proper design. -2- As the matter stands now, the route within the limits of Edina would be financed as follows: The Village would be required to buy the right —of —way from where the proposed route intersects Valley View Road west of Highway 100 at Warren Avenue to the point where V lley View Road extended intersects the proposed route between Brookview Avenue and Peacedale Avenue, with the excep- tion of the land within the cloverleaf area at Highway 100. The cloverleaf and land necessary for it would be a State cost. The County, with some State funds, would pay for construction. It i§ hoped the County would be able to budget at least some of the construction costs in the 1958 budget. If, how- ever, Congress passes a revised and expanded Federal program designed to aid .urban projects of this type, in connection with the President's request for heavier Federal financing of.highways; then the cost to the Village would probably be reduced; as the cost of the necessary land would probably be a participating cost. ; The above discussion relates primarily to that portion of the proposed high- way from Highway 100 east to Xerxes. The whole program contemplates continu- ing the road to Lake Minnetonka, and while construction west of Warren Avenue is not likely for at least five years, with practically no building in the proposed right of way at present in the West portion of Edina, efforts should be made,to secure this right —of —way as soon as possible and the ban on build- ing should apply to the proposed location throughout Edina. Efforts should be made immediately to have the necessary engineering done on the balance of the proposed right —of —way west of Warren Avenue. If the project was considered necessary in 1949, by the Minneapolis City Plan Commission, after a thorough study, it is even more necessary now, 7 years later, with the tremendous building developments in the south suburban area. The Metropolitan Sports Stadium, and the Southdale Shopping Center, which probably would not have been built as far south as they are unless there had been a terrific amount of home building in the general area, only intensify the need. There are many advantages to Edina to have a route designed for tomorrowfs traffic crossing the Village from east to west. Such a road would relieve 50th Street, which is already badly crowded, and it would make it possible for Valley View Road, 66th Street and to some extent 70th Street, to be purely residential streets. It is believed that the number of homes needed for Proposal 4 represents the absolutely minimum that can be taken. On the basis of the above facts, it is therefore recommended that you approve in principle Plan 4 and authorize the continued holding of building permits and subdivision plats within the limits of the proposed right —of —way until October 1, 1956. If you concur, we should then secure as soon as possible accurate estimates on the costs of the land involved and construction costs and work with the County, the City, and-the State to expedite final deci- sions, in order that the owners of both homes and vacant property within the limits of the proposed right —of —way may be given definite information within a reasonable time as to whether their property is to be taken and;. if it is, how much they can expect to be paid, when they can expect to receive the money, and from whom they will be paid. village of Edina January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and. Members of the Village Council Fi'dmi Village Manager Subjeeti Report on Status of'Pro.posed Cross -Town Highway:j and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right - of -way. On July 25, 1955, acting upon the information available.at that time, ;the Village Council authorized the - Village Manager aM the tai.lding Inspedtor toAold up.until January lj 1956i issuing Any permits for new building within the area priopb6 ed as of that time for the route of the long - considered 11i2nd Street" Cross -town highway. There have been._a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplat,ted property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way during the, past six months. In practically all instances) we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway.and-we have attempted to-give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments, full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956, On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right -of way, which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right -of -way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would.be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes, At a 250 foot width right -of -ray, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five - homes. -1- v _.. A new design for the grade separation between the Cross -town route and Highway 100, which includes the area between Ryan on the east, Warren on the west, just north of 64th on the south and just north of 62nd on the north, as shown on Proposal 4, requires taking only nine homes, instead of eighteen as planned originally. This means that not more than nineteen and possibly only thirteen homes,_would have to be taken to provide a modern high- way of almost two miles in length. Unless the ban on building permits is continued, however, many more homes will be built in the near future which would have to be acquired later when all final arrangements for the proposed highway are completed. This, of course, would make the cost of the project considerably higher. Both the County Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways, State of Minnesota, have approved the alignment shown on Plan 4. The proposed Cross -town route is not a new idea. It was proposed in a report dated November 10, 1949, by the Minneapolis City Planning Commission, which suggested the need for such a route to connect Trunk Highway 55 on the east and Trunk Highway 100 on the west via the South dity limits, or 62nd Street. The Minneapolis City Council in 1950 directed the City Engineer to make field surveys, to discuss the need for the route with the County, Airport Commission and Edina and Richfield, and approved the route in principle, On September 30, 1955, the Minneapolis City Council authorized the initiation of condemna- tion for the route from Portland Avenue east to 46th Avenue. The Minneapolis City Council has also authorized the withholding of building permits along a portion of the proposed route. This action.resulted in a builder going to court to force the issuance of a permit. On December 6, 1955 Judge Carroll, in the case of Ole Hansen vs. City of Minneapolis, continued the matter until September 28, 1956. It is believed that the judge felt the city should not be compelled at this time to issue a building permit which would allow the improvement of property that the city might later condemn and thus put the taxpayers to an extra cost. The case was continued upon condition that if by September 28, the city had proceeded with reasonable dispatch and was making progress towards the con- demnation and completion of the project, the writ of mandamus would not issue. It is the hope of at least one chief official for the city that some right -of- way can be purchased in 1956. The County Board highway committee is definitely in favor of expediting the acquisition of the necessary land and starting construction as soon as poss- ible. This committee has authorized the County Highway Engineer to coordinate the activities of the various agencies concerned. The State Highway Department is prepared to take its proper role of acquiring and building the cloverleaf at Highway 100 as soon as it is convinced the County, City, and Villages concerned are serious about the route. The State has already ordered work to be done on designing the separation at Trunk High- way 100, and while there may be some minor changes in the final design from that shown on Plan 4, the elongated cloverleaf proposed is generally accept- able, and State officials feel Plan 4 i the most economical and has proper design. -2- As the matter stands now, the route within the limits of Edina would be financed as follows: The Village would be required to buy the right -of -way from where the proposed route intersects Vaileyr View Road west of Highway 100 at Warren Avenue to the ,point, where V lley View Road extended intersects the proposed route between Brookvew Avenue and Peacedale Avenue, with the excep- tion of the land within the cloverleaf area.at Highway 100. The cloverleaf and land necessary for it would be a State cost. The County, with some State funds, would pay for construction. It is hoped the County would be able to budget'at least some of the construction costs in the 1958 budget. If, how- ever, Congress passes a revised and expanded Federal program designed to aid urban projects of this type, in connection with the Presidentfs request for heavier Federal financing of highways, then the cost to the Village would probably be reduced, as the cost of the necessary land would probably be a participating cost. The above discussion relates primarily to that portion of the proposed high- way from Highway 100 east to Xerxes. The whole program contemplates continu- ing the road to Lake Minnetonka, and while construction west of Warren Avenue is not likely for at least five years, with practically no building in the proposed right of way at present in the West portion of Edina, efforts should be made to secure this right -of -way as soon as possible and the ban on build- ing should apply to the proposed location throughout Edina. Efforts should be made immediately to have the necessary engineering done on the. balance of the proposed right-of-way west of Warren Avenue. If the project was considered necessary in 1949, by the Minneapolis City Plan Commission, after a thorough study, it is even more nec'rssary now, 7.years later, with the tremendous building developments in the south suburban area. The Metropolitan Sports Stadium, and the Southdale Shopping Center, which probably would not have been built as far south as they are unless there had been a terrific amount of home building in the general area, only intensify the need. There are many advantages to Edina to have a route designed for tomorrowts traffic crossing the Village from east to west. Such a road would relieve 50th Street, which is already badly crowded, and it would make it possible for Valley View Road, 66th Street and to some extent 70th Street, to be purely residential streets. It is believed that the number of homes needed for Proposal 4 represents the absolutely minimum that can be taken. On the basis of the above facts, it is therefore recommended that you approve in principle Plan 4 and authorize the continued holding of building.permits and subdivision plats within the limits of.the proposed right -of -way until October 1, 1956. If you concur, we should then secure as soon as..possible accurate estimates on the costs of the land involved and construction costs and work with the County, the City, and the State to expedite final deci- sions, in order that the owners of both homes and vacant property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way may be given definite information within a reasonable time as to whether their property is to be taken and, if it is, how much they can expect to be paid, when they can expect to receive the money, and from whom they will be paid.. Village of Edina January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right- of -way. On July 25, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 1, 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long- considered 1162nd Street" Cross -town highway. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the' limits of the proposed right -of -way during the past six months. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments, full details of which will be given in this report,.which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956. On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right-of-way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right-of-way, which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right-of-way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue-east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes. At a 250 foot width right-of-way, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. -1- A new design for the grade separation between the Cross -town route and Highway 100, which includes the.area between Ryan on the east, Warren on the west, just north of 64th on the south and just north of 62nd on the north, as shown on 'Proposal 4, requires taking only nine homes, instead of eighteen as planned originally. This means that not more than nineteen and possibly only thirteen homes, would have to be taken to provide a modern high- way of almost two miles in length. Unless the ban on building permits is continued, however, many more homes will be built in the near future which would have to be acquired later when all final arrangements for the proposed highway are completed. This, of course., would make the cost of the project considerably higher. Both the County Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways, State of Minnesota, have approved the alignment shown on Plan 4. The proposed Cross -town route is-n-ot a: ' idea. It was proposed in a report dated November 10, 1949, by the Minneapolis City Planning Commission, which suggested the need for such.a route to connect Trunk Highway 55 on the east and Trunk Highway 100 on the west via,the South �ity limits, or 62nd Street. The Minneapolis City Council in 1950 directed the City Engineer to make field surveys, to discuss the need for the route with the County, Airport Commission and Edina and Richfield, and approved the route in principle, On September 30, 1955, the Minneapolis City Council authorized the initiation of condemna- tion for the route from Portland Avenue east to 46th Avenue. The Minneapolis City Council has also authorized the withholding of building permits along a portion of the proposed route. This action resulted in a builder going to court to force the issuance of a permit. On December 6, 1955 Judge Carroll, in the case of Ole Hansen vs. City of Minneapolis, continued the matter until September 28, 1956• It is believed that the judge felt the city should not be compelled at this time to issue a building permit which would allow the improvement of property that the city might later condemn and thus put the taxpayers to an extra cost. The case was continued upon condition that if by September 28, the city had proceeded with reasonable dispatch and was making progress towards the con- demnation and completion of the project, the writ of mandamus would not issue. It is the hope of at least one chief official for the city that some right -of- way can be purchased in 1956, The County Board highway committee is definitely in favor of expediting the acquisition of the necessary land and starting construction as soon as poss- ible. This committee has authorized the County Highway Engineer to coordinate the activities of the various agencies concerned. The State Highway Department is prepared to take its proper role of acquiring and building the cloverleaf at Highway 100 as soon as it is convinced the County, City, and Villages concerned are serious about the route. The State has already ordered work to be done on designing the separation at Trunk High- way 100, and while there maybe some minor changes in the final design from that shown on Plan 4, the elongated cloverleaf proposed is generally accept- able, and State officials feel Plan 4 is the most economical and has proper design. -2- As the matter stands now, the route within the limits of Edina would be financed as follows; The Village would be required to buy the right-of-way from where the proposed route intersects Valley View Road west of Highway 100 at Warren Avenue to the point where V lley View Road extended intersects the proposed route between Brookview Avenue and Peacedale Avenue, with the excep- tion of the land within the cloverleaf area at Highway 100. The cloverleaf and land necessary for it would be a State cost. The County, with some State funds, would pay for construction. It is hoped the County would be able to budget at least some of the construction costs in the 1958 budget. If, how- ever, Congress passes a revised and expanded Federal program designed to aid urban projects. of this type, in connection with the President's request for heavier Federal financing of highways, then the cost to the Village would probably be reduced, as the cost of the necessary land would probably be a participating cost. The above discussion relates primarily to that portion of the proposed high- way from Highway 100 east to Xerxes.` The whole program contemplates continu- ing the road to Lake Minnetonka, and while construction west of Warren Avenue is not likely for at least five years, with practically no building in the proposed right of way at present in the West portion of Edina,, efforts should be made to secure this right-of-way as soon as possible and the ban on build- ing should apply to the proposed location throughout Edina. Efforts should be made immediately to have the necessary engineering done on the balance of the proposed right-of-way west of Warren Avenue. If the project was considered necessary in 1949, by the Minneapolis City Plan Commission, after a thorough study, it is even more necssary now, 7 years later, with the tremendous building developments in the south suburban area. The Metropolitan Sports Stadium, and the Southdale Shopping Center, which probably would not have been built as far south as they are unless there had been a terrific amount of home building in the general area, only intensify the need. There are many advantages to Edina to have a route designed for tomorrowts traffic crossing the Village from east to west. Such a road would relieve 50th Street, which is already badly crowded, and it would make it possible for Valley View.Road, 66th Street and to some extent 70th Street, to be purely residential streets. It is believed that the number of homes needed for Proposal 4 represents the absolutely minimum that can be taken. On the basis of the above facts, it is therefore recommended that you approve in principle Plan 4 and authorize the continued holding of building permits and subdivision plats within the limits of the proposed right -of -way until October 1, 1956. If you concur, we should then secure as soon as possible accurate estimates on the costs of the land involved and construction costs and work with the County, the City, and the State to expedite final deci- sions, in order that the owners'of both homes and vacant property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way may be given definite information within a reasonable time as to whether their property is to be taken and if it is, how much they can expect to be paid, when they can expect to receive the money, and from whom they will be paid. Village of Edina January,,9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right- of-way. On July 250 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 1, 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long - considered 1162nd Street's Cross -town highway. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way during the past six months. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not.issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments.. full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building.permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956. . On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right--of-way,, which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right-of-way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway,would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes. At a 250 foot width right -of -gray, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. -1- A new design for the grade separation between the Cross -town route and Highway 100, which includes the area between Ryan on the east, Warren on the west, just north of 64th on the south and just north of 62nd on the north, as shown on Proposal 4. requires taking only nine homes, instead of eighteen as planned originally. This means that not more than nineteen and possibly only thirteen homes, would have to be taken to provide a modern high.- way of almost two miles in length. Unless the ban on building permits is continued, however, many more homes will be built in the near future which would have to be acquired later when all final arrangements for the proposed highway are completed. This, of course, would make the cost of the project considerably higher. Both the County Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways, State of Minnesota, have approved the alignment shown on Plan 4• The proposed Cross -town route is not a new idea. It was proposed in a report dated November 10, 1949, by the Minneapolis City Planning Commission, which suggested the need for such a route to, connect Tank Highway 55 on the east and Trunk Highway 100 on the west via the South City limits, or 62nd Street. The Minneapolis City Council in 1950.directed the City Engineer to make field surveys, to discuss the need for the route with the County, Airport Commission and Edina and Richfield, and approved the route in principle, On September 30, 1955, the Minneapolis City Council authorized the initiation of condemna- tion for the route from Portland Avenue east to 16th Avenue. The Minneapolis City Council has also authorized the withholding of building permits along a portion of the proposed route, This action resulted in a builder going to court to force the issuance of a permit. On December 6, 1955 Judge Carroll, in the case of Ole Hansen vs. City of Minneapolis, continued the matter until September 28, 1956. It is believed that the judge felt the city should not be compelled at this time to issue a building permit which would allow the improvement of property that the city might later condemn and thus.put the taxpayers to an extra cost. The case was continued upon condition that if by September 28, the city had proceeded with reasonable dispatch and was making progress towards the con - demnation and completion of the project, the writ of mandamus would not issue. It is the hope of at least one chief official for the city that some right -of- way can be purchased in 1956. The County Board highway committee is definitely in favor of expediting the acquisition of the necessary land and starting construction as soon as poss- ible. This.committee has authorized the County Highway Engineer to coordinate the activities of the various agencies concerned. The State Highway Department is prepared to take its proper role of acquiring and building the cloverleaf at Highway 100 as soon as it is convinced the County, City, and Villages concerned are serious about the route. The State has already ordered work to be done on designing the separation at Trunk High- way 100, and while there may be some minor changes in the final design from that shown on Plan 4., the elongated cloverleaf proposed is generally accept- able, and State officials feel Plan 4 is the most economical and has proper design. -2- As the matter stands now, the route within the.limits of Edina would be financed as follows; The Village would be required to buy the right -of -way from where the proposed route intersects Valley View Road west of-Highway 100 at Warren Avenue to the point where V`�lley View Road extended intersects the proposed route between Brookview Avenue and Peacedale Avenue, with the excep- tion of the land within the clovexl:eaf rea at Highway 100. The cloverleaf and land necessary for it would be a State cost. The County, with some State funds, would pay for construction: It is hoped the County would be able to budget at least some of the construction costs in the 1958 budget. If, how- ever, Congress passes a revised and expanded Federal program designed to aid urban projects of this type, in connection with the President's request for heavier Federal financing of highways, then the cost to the Village would probably be reduced, as the cost of the necessary land would probably be a participating cost. The above discussion relates primarily to that portion of the proposed high- way from Highway 100 east to Xerxes. The whole program contemplates continu- ing the road to Lake Minnetonka, and while construction west of Warren Avenue is not likely for at least five years, with practically no building in the proposed right of way at present in the West portion of Edina, efforts should be made to secure this right -of -way as soon as possible and the ban on bu4d- ing should apply to the proposed location throughout Edina. Efforts should be made immediately to have the necessary engineering done on the balance of the proposed right-of-way west of Warren Avenue. If the project was considered necessary in 1949, by the Minneapolis City Plan Commission, after a thorough study, it is even more necessary now, 7 years later, with the tremendous building developments in the south suburban area. The Metropolitan Sports Stadium, and the Southdale Shopping Center, which probably would not have been built as far south as they are unless there had been a terrific amount of home building in the general area, only intensify the need. There are many advantages to Edina to have a route designed for tomorrowts traffic crossing the Village from east to west. Such a road would relieve 50th Street, which is already badly crowded, and it would make it possible for Valley View Road, 66th Street and to some extent 70th Street, to be purely residential streets. It is believed that the number of homes needed for Proposal 4 represents the absolutely minimum that can be taken. On the basis of the above facts, ,it is therefore recommended that you approve in principle Plan 4 and authorize the continued holding of building permits and subdivision plats within the limits of the proposed right -of -way until October 1, 1956. If you concur, we should then secure as soon as possible accurate estimates on,the costs of the land involved and construction costs and work with the County, the City, and the State to expedite final deci- sions, in order that the owners of both homes and vacant property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way may be given definite information within a reasonable time as to whether their property is to be taken and, if it is, how much they can expect to be paid, when they can expect to receive the money, and from whom they will be paid. Village of Edina January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of �oohibitionsofTBuilding within proposed right- of-way. Continued of -way. On July 251, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 12 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long- considered 142nd Street" Cross -town highway. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right -of- -way during the past six months. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available., but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments.9 full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months,, or until October 11 19560 On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and present ed for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based an aerial csurvey and s photo of the,area taken October 19, 1955, field with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. -It con- templates a 300 foot wide right-of-way., which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points'to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right-of-way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are'needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes. At a 250 foot width right-of-way, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes., -1- A new design for the grade separation between the Cross -town route and Highway 100, which includes the area between Ryan on the east, Warren on the west, just north,of 64th on the south and just north of 62nd on the north, as shown on Proposal'4, requires taking only nine homes, instead of eighteen as planned originally. This means that not more than nineteen and possibly only thirteen homes, would.have to be taken to provide a modern high- way of almost two miles in length. Unless the ban on building permits is continued, however, many more homes will be built in the near future which would have to be acquired later when all final arrangements for the proposed highway are completed. This, of course, would make the cost of the project considerably higher. Both the County Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways, State of Minnesota, have approved the alignment shown on Plan 4. The proposed Cross -town route is not a new idea. It was proposed in a report dated November 10, 1949, by the Minneapolis City Planning Commission, which suggested the need for such a route to connect Tru�nk Highway 55 on the east and Trunk Highway 100 on the west. via the South.City limits, or 62nd Street. The Minneapolis City Council in 19.50 directed the City Engineer to make field surveys, to discuss the need for the route with the :County, Airport Commission and Edina and Richfield, and approved the route in principle, On September 30, 1955, the Minneapolis City Council authorized the initiation of condemna- tion for the route from Portland Avenue east to 46th Avemue. The Minneapolis City Council has also authorized the withholding of building permits along a portion of the proposed route. This action resulted in a builder going to court to force the issuance of a permit. On December 6, 1955 Judge Carroll, in the case of Ole Hansen vs. City of Minneapolis, continued the matter until September 28, 1956. It is believed that the judge felt the city should not be compelled at this time to issue a building permit which would allow the improvement of property that the city might later condemn and thus put the taxpayers to an extra cost. The case was continued upon condition that if by September 28, the city had proceeded with reasonable dispatch and was making progress towards the con- demnation and completion of the project, the writ of mandamus would not issue. It is the hope of at least one chief official for the city that some right -of- way can be purchased in 1956, The County Board highway committee is definitely in favor of expediting the acquisition of the necessary land and starting construction as soon as poss- ible. This committee has authorized the County Highway Engineer to.coordinate the activities of the various agencies concerned. The State Highway Department is prepared to take its proper role of acquiring and building the cloverleaf at Highway 100 as soon as it is convinced the County, City, and Villages concerned are serious about the route. The State has already ordered work to be done on designing the separation at Trunk High- way 100, and while there may be some minor changes in the final design from that shown on Plan 4, the elongated cloverleaf proposed is generally accept- able, and State officials feel Plan 4 is the most economical and has proper design. -2- As the matter stands now, the route within the limits of Edina would be financed as follows: The Village would be required to buy the right-of-way from where the proposed route intersects Valley View Road west of Highway 100 at Warren Avenue to the point where V lley View Road extended intersects the proposed route between Brookview Avenue and Peacedale Avenue, with the excep- tion of the land within the cloverleaf area at Highway 100. The cloverleaf and land necessary for it would be a State cost. The County,'with some State funds, would pay for construction. It is hoped the County would be able to budget at least some of the construction costs in the 1958 budget. If, how- ever, Congress passes a revised and expanded Federal program designed to aid urban projects of this type, in connection with the PresidentIs request for heavier Federal finan©ing of highways, then the cost to the Village would probably be reduced, as the cost of the necessary land would probably be a participating cost. The above discussion relates primarily to that portion of the proposed high- way from Highway 100 east to Xerxes. The whole program contemplates continu- ing the road to Lake Minnetonka, and while construction west of Warren Avenue is not likely for at least five years, with practically no building in the proposed right of way at present in the West portion of Edina, efforts should be made to secure this right -of -way as soon as possible and the ban on build- ing should apply to the proposed location throughout Edina. Efforts should be made immediately to have the necessary engineering done on the balance of the proposed right-of-way west of Warren Avenue. If the project was considered necessary in 1949, by the Minneapolis City Plan Commission, after a thorough study, it is even more necessary now, 7 years later, with the tremendous building developments in the south suburban area.. The Metropolitan Sports Stadium, and the Southdale Shopping Cent.er,,which probably would not have been built as far south as they are unless there had been a terrific amount of home building in the general area, only intensify the need. There are many advantages to Edina to have a route designed-for tomorrowts traffic crossing the Village from east to west. Such a road would relieve 50th Street, which.is already badly crowded, and it would make it possible for Valley View Road, 66th Street and to some extent 70th Street, to be purely residential streets. It is believed that the number of homes needed for Proposal 4 represents the absolutely minimum that can be taken. On the basis of the above facts, it is therefore recommended that you approve in principle Plan 4 and authorize the continued holding of building permits and subdivision plats within the limits of the proposed right -of -way until October 1, 1956. If you concur, we should then secure as soon as possible accurate estimates on the costs of the land involved and construction costs and work with the County, the City, and the State to expedite final deci- sions, in order that the owners of both homes and vacant property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way may be given definite information within a reasonable time as to whether their property is to be taken and, if it is, how much they can expect to be paid, when they can expect to receive the money, and from whom they will be paid. -3- Village of Edina January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable mayor -and Members of the.. Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued.Prohibition of Building within proposed right- of -way. On July 25, 1955, acting upon.the information.available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 1, 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long- considered 1162nd Street" Cross, -town highway. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently.unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right-of-way during the past six months. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying•pf presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments, full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956. On October 2I+, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based son an aerial csurvey and f photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, y s with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. k is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right -of -way, which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right -qf way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it.is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a_center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes. At a 250 foot width right -of -way, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. 19RI A; new design for the grade separation between the Cross -town route and Highway 100, which includes the area between Ryan on the east, Warren on the west,,just north of 64th on the south and just north of 62nd on the north, as,shown on Proposal 4, requires..taking only nine homes, instead of eighteen as planned originally. This means that not more than nineteen and possibly only thirteen homes, would have to be taken to provide a modern high- way of almost two miles in length. Unless the ban on building permits is continued, however, many more homes will be built in the near future which would have to be acquired later when all final arrangements for the proposed highway are completed. This, of course, would make the cost of the project considerably higher. Both the County Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways, State of Minnesota, have approved the alignment shown on Plan 4. The proposed Cross -town route is.not a new idea. It was proposed in a report dated November 10, 1949, by the Minneapolis City Planning Commission, which suggested the need for such a route to connect Tank Highway 55 on the east and Trunk Highway 100 on the west via the South City limits, or 62nd Street. The Minneapolis City Council in 1950 directed the City Engineer to make field surveys, to discuss the need for the'.route with the County, Airport Commission and Edina and Richfield, and approved the route in principle, On September 3011 1955, the Minneapolis City Council authorized the initiation of condemna- tion for the route from Portland Avenue east to 46th Avenue, The Minneapolis City Council has also authorized the withholding of building permits along a portion of the proposed route. This action resulted in a builder going to court to force the issuance of a permit. On December 6, 1955 Judge Carroll, in the case of Ole Hansen vs. City of Minneapolis, continued the matter until September 28, 1956. It is believed that the judge felt the city should not be compelled at this time to issue a building permit which would allow the improvement of property that the city might later condemn and thus put the taxpayers to an extra cost. The case was continued upon condition that if by September 28, the city had proceeded with reasonable dispatch and was making progress towards the con- demnation and completion of the project, the writ of mandamus would not issue. It is the hope of at least one chief official for the city that some right -of- way can be purchased in 1956. The County Board highway committee is definitely in favor of expediting the acquisition of the necessary land and starting construction as soon as poss- ible. This committee has authorized the County Highway Engineer to coordinate the activities of the various agencies concerned. The State Highway Department is prepared to take its proper role of acquiring and building the cloverleaf at Highway 100 as soon as it is convinced the County, City, and Villages concerned are serious about the route. The State has already ordered work to be done on designing the separation at Trunk High- way 100, and while there may be some minor changes in the final design from that shown on Plan 4, the elongated cloverleaf proposed is generally accept- able, and State officials feel Plan 4 is the most economical and has proper design. -2- As the matter stands now, the route within the limits of Edina would be financed as follows: The Village would be required to buy the right -of -way from where, the proposed route intersects Valley View Road west of Highway 100 at Warren!Avenue to the point where V lley View Road extended intersects the proposed route between Brookview Avenue and Peacedale Avenue, with the excep- tion of the land within the cloverleaf area at Highway 100. The cloverleaf and land necessary for it would be a State cost. The County, with some State funds, would pay for construction. It is hoped the County would be able to budget at least some of the construction costs in the 1958 budget. If, how- ever, Congress passes a revised and expanded Federal program designed to aid urban projects of this type, in connection with the President's request for heavier Federal financing of highways, then the cost to the Village would probably be reduced, as the cost of the necessary land would probably be.a participating cost. The above discussion relates primarily to that portion of the proposed high= way from Highway 100 east to Xerxes. The whole program contemplates'continvz' ing the road to Lake Minnetonka, and while construction west of Arren Avenue is not likely for at least five years, with practically no building in the proposed right of way at present in the West portion of Edina, efforts should be made to secure this right -of -way as soon as possible and the ban on build ing should apply to the proposed location throughout Edina. Efforts should be made immediately to have the necessary engineering done on the balance of the proposed right-of-way west of Warren Avenue. If the project was considered necessary in 1949, by the Minneapolis City Plan Commission, after a thorough study, it is even more nee- ;bsary now, 7 years later, with the tremendous building developments in the south suburban area. The Metropolitan Sports Stadium, and the Southdale Shopping Center, which . probably would not have been built as far south as they are unless there had been a terrific amount'of home building in the general area, only intensify the need. There are many advantages to Edina to have a route designed for tomorrowts traffic crossing the Village from east to west. Such a road would relieve 50th Street, which is already badly crowded, and it would make it possible for Valley View Road, 66th Street and to some extent 70th Street, to be purely residential streets. It is believed that the number of homes needed for Proposal 4 represents the absolutely minimum that can be taken. On the basis of the above facts, it is therefore recommended that you approve in principle Plan 4 and authorize the continued holding of building permits and subdivision plats within the limits of the proposed right -of -way until October 1, 1956. If you concur, we should then secure as soon as possible accurate estimates on the costs of the land involved and construction costs and work with the County, the City, and the State to expedite final deci- sions, in order that the owners of both homes and vacant property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way may be given definite information within a reasonable time as to whether their property is to be taken and, if it is, how much they can expect to be paid, when they can expect to receive the money, and from whom they will be paid. -3- Village of Edina January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right - of -way. On July 25, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 1, 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long - considered 11E2nd Street's Cross -town highway, There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right - -of -way during the past six months. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments, full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until -now and which justify your`further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956. On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right -of -way, which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right -of -way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division or would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes. At a 250 foot width right -of -,way, Proposal k would require taking only four or five homes. -1- A new design for the, grade separation between the Cross -town route and Highway 100, which includes the area between Ryan on the east, Warren on the west, just north of 64th on the south and just north of 62nd on the north) as shown on Proposal.4, requires taking only nine homes, instead of eighteen as planned originally. This means that not more than nineteen and possibly only thirteen homes, would have to be taken to provide a modern high- way of almost two miles in length,. Unless the ban on building permits is continued, however, many more homes will be built in the near future which would have to be acquired later when all final arrangements for the proposed highway are completed. This, of course, would make the cost of the project considerably higher. Both the County Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways, State of Minnesota, have approved the alignment shown on Plan 4. The proposed Cross -town route is not a new idea. It was proposed in a report dated November 10.,"1949, by the Minneapolis City Planning Commission, which suggested the need for such a route to connect Trunk Highway 55 on the east and Trunk Highway 100 on the west via the South bity limits, or 62nd Street. The Minneapolis City Council in 1950 directed the City Engineer to make field surveys, to discuss the need for the route with the County, Airport Commission and Edina and Richfield, and approved the route in principle, On September 30, 1955, the Minneapolis City Council authorized the initiation of condemna- tion for the route from Portland Avenue east to 46th Avetmae. The Minneapolis City.Council has also authorized the withholding of building permits along a portion of the proposed route. This action resulted in a builder going to court to force the issuance of a permit. On December 6, 1955 Judge Carroll, in the case of Ole Hansen vs. City of Minneapolis, continued the matter until September 28, 19560 It is believed that the judge felt the city should not be compelled at this time to issue a building permit which would allow the improvement of property that the city might later condemn and thus put the taxpayers to an extra cost. The case was continued upon condition that if by September 28, the city had proceeded with reasonable dispatch and was making progress towards the con- demnation and completion of the project, the writ of mandamus would not issue. It is the hope of at least one chief official for the city that some right -of- way can be purchased in 1956. The County Board highway committee is definitely in favor of expediting the acquisition of the necessary land and starting construction as soon as poss- ible. This committee has authorized the County Highway Engineer to coordinate the activities of the various agencies concerned. The State Highway Department is prepared to take its proper role of acquiring and building the cloverleaf at Highway 100 -as soon as it is convinced the County, City, and Villages concerned are serious about the route. The State has already ordered work to be done on designing the separation at Trunk High- way 100, and while there may be some minor changes in the final design from that shown on Plan 4, the elongated cloverleaf proposed is generally accept- able, and State officials feel Plan 4 is the most economical and has proper design. -2- As the matter stands now, the route within the limits of Edina would be financed as follows: The Village would be required to buy the right-6f-way from where the proposed route intersects Valley View Road west of Highway 100 at Warren Avenue to the point where V lley View Road extended intersects the proposed route between Brookview Avenue and Peacedale Avenue, with the excep- tion of the land within the cloverleaf area at Highway 100, The cloverleaf and land necessary for it would be a State Cost. The County with some State funds, would pay for construction. It is hoped the County would be able to budget at least some of the construction costs in the 1958 budget. If, how- ever, Congress passes a revised and expanded Federal program designed to aid urban projects of this type, in connection with the Presidents request for heavier Federal finan©ing of highways, then the cost to the Village would probably be reduced, as the cost of the necessary land would probably be a participating cost. The above discussion relates primarily to that portion of the proposed high- way from Highway 100 east to Xerxes. The whole program contemplates continu- ing the road to Lake Minnetonka, and while construction west of Warren Avenue is not likely for at least five years, with practically no building in the proposed right of way at present in the West portion of Edina, efforts should be made to secure this right -of -way as soon as possible and the ban on build- ing should apply to the proposed location throughout Edina. Efforts should be made immediately to have the necessary engineering done on the balance of the proposed right-of-way west of Warren Avenue. If the project was considered necessary in 1949, by the Minneapolis City Plan Commission, after a thorough study, it is even more necessary now, 7 years later, with the tremendous building developments in the south suburban area. The Metropolitan Sports Stadium, and the Southdale Shopping Center, which probably would not have been built as far. south as they are unless there had been a terrific amount of home building in the general area, only intensify the need. There are many advantages to Edina to have a route designed for tomorrowts traffic crossing the Village from east to west. Such a road would relieve 50th Street, which is already badly crowded, and it would make it possible for Valley View Road, 66th Street and to some extent 70th Street, to be purely residential streets. It is believed that the number of homes needed for Proposal 4 represents the absolutely minimum that can be taken. On the basis of the above facts, it is therefore recommended that you approve in principle Plan 4 and authorize the continued holding of building permits and subdivision plats within the limits of the proposed right -of -way until October 1, 1956. If you concur, we should then secure as soon as possible accurate estimates on the costs of the land involved and construction costs and work with the County, the City, and the State to expedite final deci- sions, in order that the owners of both homes and vacant property within the. limits of the proposed right -of -way may be given definite information within a reasonable time as to whether their property is to be taken and, if it is, how much they can expect to be paid, when they can expect to receive the money, and from whom they will be paid. —3- Village of Edina January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed. Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right- . On,July 25, 1955, acting upon the information.available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Vills.ge Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 1, 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long - considered 1'62nd.Street" Cross -town highlray. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the ',proposed right -of -way during the past six months. In practically all instancesi we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments . full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956. On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite, center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right =of way, which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot 'right -of -way would include all necessary sei'= vice drives and it is 4irmly believed that this-proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide') and four moving lanes, two on,either side, would be provided._, When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed') with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4'would require the taking of ten homes. At a 250 foot width right -of -,ray, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. -1- A new.design for the grade separation between the Cross -town route and ` Highway,100, which includes the area between Ryan on the east, Warren on the west, just north of 64th on the south and just north of 62nd on the north; as shown on Proposal 4, requires taking only nine homes, instead of eighteen as planned originally. This means that not more than nineteen and possibly only thirteen homes, would have to be taken to provide a modern high- way of almost two miles in length. Unless the ban on building permits is continued, however, many more homes will be built in the near future which would have to be acquired later when all final arrangements for the proposed highway are completed. This, of course, would make the cost of the project considerably higher. Both the County Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways, State of Minnesota, have approved the alignment shown on Plan 4. The proposed Cross -town route is not a new idea. It was proposed in a report dated November 10, 1949, by the Minneapolis City Planning Commission, which suggested the need for such a route to connect T nk Highway 55 on the east and Trunk Highway 100 on the west via the South Pty limits, or 62nd Street. The Minneapolis City Council in 1950 directed the City Engineer to make field surveys, to discuss the need for the route with the County, Airport Commission and Edina and Richfield, and approved the route in principle. On September 30, 1955, the Minneapolis City Council authorized the initiation of condemna- tion for the route from Portland Avenue east to 46th Avemue.' The Minneapolis City Council has also authorized the withholding of building permits along a portion of the proposed route. This action resulted in a builder going to court to force the issuance of a permit,. On December 6, 1955 Judge Carroll, in the case of Ole Hansen vs. City of Minneapolis, continued the matter until September 28, 1956. It is believed that the judge felt the city should not be compelled at this time to issue a building permit which would allow the improvement of property that the city might later condemn and thus put the taxpayers to an extra cost. The case was continued upon condition that if by September 28, the city had proceeded with reasonable dispatch and was making progress towards the con- demnation and completion of the project, the writ of mandamus would not issue. It is the hope of at least one chief official for the city that some right -of- way can be purchased in 1956. The County Board highway committee is definitely in favor of expediting the acquisition of.the necessary land and starting construction as soon as poss- ible. This committee has authorized the County Highway Engineer to coordinate the activities of the various agencies concerned. The State Highway Department is prepared to take its proper role of acquiring and building the cloverleaf at Highway 100 as soon as it is convinced the County, City, and Villages concerned are serious about the route. The State has already ordered work to be done on designing the separation at Trunk High- way 100, and while there may be some minor changes in the final design from that shown on Plan 4, the elongated cloverleaf proposed is generally accept- able, and State officials feel Plan 4 is the most economical and has proper design. -2- As the matter stands now, the route within the limits of Edina would be financed as follows: The Village would be required to buy the right -of way from where the proposed route intersects Valley View Road west of Highway 100 at Warren Avenue to the point where V;�lley View Road extended intersects the proposed route betiweeh Brookview Avenue and Peacedale Avenue, with the excep- tion of the land within the cloverleaf area at Highway 100. The cloverleaf and land necessary for it would be a State cost. The County, with some State funds, would pay for construction. It is hoped the County would be able to budget at least some of the construction costs in the 1958 budget. If, how- ever, Congress passes a revised and expanded Federal program designed to aid urban projects of this type, in connection with the President's request for heavier Federal financing of highways, then the cost to the Village would probably be reduoed, as the cost of the necessary land would probably be a participating cost. The above discussion relates primarily to that portion of the proposed high- way from Highway 100 east to Xerxes. The whole program contemplates continu- ing the road to Lake Minnetonka, and while construction west of Warren Avenue is not likely for at least five years, with practically no building in the proposed right of way at present in the West portion of Edina�' efforts should be made to secure this right -of -way as soon as possible and the ban on build- ing should apply to the proposed location throughout Edina. Efforts should be made immediately to have the necessary engineering done on the balance of the proposed right-of-way west of Warren Avenue. If the project was considered necessary in 1949, by the Minneapolis City Plan Commission, after a thorough study, it is even more nec'i7ssary now, 7 years later, with the tremendous building developments in the south suburban area. The Metropolitan Sports Stadium, and the Southdale Shopping Center, which probably would not have been built as far south as they are unless there had been a terrific amount of home building in the general area, only intensify the need. There are many advantages to Edina to have a route designed for tomorrow +s traffic crossing the Village from east to west. Such a road would relieve 50th Street, which is already badly crowded, and it would make it possible for Valley View Road, 66th Street and to some extent 70th Street, to be purely residential streets. 'It is believed that the number of homes needed for Proposal 4 represents the absolutely minimum that can be taken. On the basis of the above facts, it is therefore recommended that you approve in principle Plan 4 and authorize the continued holding of building permits and subdivision plats within the limits of the proposed right -of -way until October 1, 1956. If you concur, we should then secure as soon as possible accurate estimates on the costs of the land involved and construction costs and work with the County, the City, and the State to expedite final deci- sions, in order that the owners of both homes and vacant property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way may be given definite information within a reasonable time as to whether their property is to be taken and, if it is, how much they can expect to be paid, when they can expect to receive the money, and from whom they will be paid. ~3- Village of Edina January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right- of -way. On July 25, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 1, 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long- considered 142nd Street" Cross -town highway. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way during the past six months, In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments, full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956. On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village-limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to- Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based on an aerial.survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right -of -way, which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right-of-way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four "moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided.. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes. At a 250 foot width right -of -way, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. -1- A new design for the grade separation between the Cross -town route and Highway 100, which includes the area between Ryan on the east, Warren on the west, just north of 64th on the south and just north of 62nd on the north, as shown on Proposal 4, requires taking only nine homes, instead of eighteen as planned originally. This means that not more than nineteen and possibly only thirteen homes, would have to be taken to provide a modern high- way of almost two miles in length. Unless the ban on building permits is continued, however, many more homes will be built in the near future which would have to be acquired later when all final arrangements for the proposed highway are completed. This, of course, would make the cost of the project considerably higher. Both the County Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways, State of Minnesota, have approved the alignment shown on Plan 4. The proposed Cross -town route is not a new idea. It was proposed in a report dated November 10, 1949, by the Minneapolis City Planning Commission, which suggested the need for such a route to connect Tank Highway 55 on the east and Trunk Highway 100 on the west via the South City limits, or 62nd Street. The Minneapolis City Council in 1950 directed the City Engineer to make field surveys, to discuss the need for the route with the County, Airport Commission and Edina and Richfield, and approved the route in principle. On September 30, 1955, the Minneapolis City Council authorized the initiation of condemna- tion for the route from Portland Avenue east to 46th Avenue, The Minneapolis City Council has also authorized the withholding of building permits along a portion of the proposed route. This action resulted in a builder going to court to force the issuance of a permit. On December 6, 1955 Judge Carroll, in the case of Ole Hansen vs. City of Minneapolis, continued the matter until September 26, 1956. It is believed that the judge felt the city should not be compelled at this time to issue a building permit which would allow the improvement of property that the city might later condemn and thus put the taxpayers to an extra cost. The case was continued upon condition that if by September 28, the city had proceeded with reasonable dispatch and was making progress towards the con- demnation and completion of the project, the writ of mandamus would not issue. It is the hope of at least one chief official for the city that some right -of- way can be purchased in 1956. The County Board highway committee is definitely in favor of expediting the acquisition of the necessary land and starting construction as soon as poss- ible. This committee has authorized the County Highway Engineer to coordinate the activities of the various agencies concerned. The State Highway Department is prepared to take its proper role of acquiring and building the cloverleaf at Highway 100 as soon as it is convinced the County, City, and Villages concerned are serious about the route. The State has already ordered work to be done on designing the separation at Trunk High- way 100, and while there may be some minor changes in the final design from that shown on Plan 4, the elongated cloverleaf proposed is generally accept- able, and State officials feel Plan 4 is the most economical and has.preper design. -2- As the matter stands now, the route within the limits of Edina would be, financed as follows: The Village would be required to buy the right -of -way from where the proposed route intersects Valley View Road west of Highway 100 at Warren Avenue to the point where V lley View Road extended intersects the proposed route between Brookview Avenue and Peacedale Avenue, with the excep- tion of the land within the cloverleaf area at Highway 100. The cloverleaf and land necessary for it would be a State cost. The County, with some State funds, would pay for construction. It is hoped the County would be able to budget at least some of the construction costs in the 1958 budget. If, how- ever, Congress passes a revised and expanded Federal program designed to aid urban projects of this type, in connection with the PresidentIs request for heavier Federal financing of highways, then the cost to the Village would probably be reduced, as the cost of the necessary land would probably be a participating cost. The above discussion relates primarily to that portion of the proposed high- way from Highway 100 east to Xerxes. The whole.program contemplates continu- ing the road to Lake Minnetonka, and while construction west of Warren Avenue is not likely for at least five years, with practically no building in the proposed right of way at present in the West portion of,Edina, efforts should be made to secure this right -of -way as soon as possible and the ban on build- ing should apply to the proposed.location throughout Edina. Efforts should be made immediately to have the necessary engineering done on the balance of the proposed right-of-way west of Warren Avenue. If the project was considered necessary in 1949, by the Minneapolis City,,PlAh Commission, after a thorough study, it is even more necebsary now, 7 year's later, with.the tremendous building developments in the south suburban area. The Metropolitan Sports Stadium, and the Southdale Shopping.Center, which probably would not have been built as far south as they are unless there had been a terrific amount of home building in the general area, only intensify the need. There are many advantages to Edina to-have a route designed for tomorrowts traffic crossing the Village from east to west. Such a road would relieve 50th Street, which is already badly crowded, and it would make it possible for Valley View Road, 66th Street and to some extent 70th Street, to be purely residential streets. It is believed that the number of homes needed for Proposal 4 represents the absolutely minimum that can be taken. On the basis of the above facts, it is therefore recommended that you approve in principle Plan 4 and authorize the continued holding of building permits and subdivision plats within the limits of the proposed right-of-way until October 1, 1956. If you concur, we should then secure as soon as possible accurate estimates on the costs of the land involved and construction costs and work with the County, the City, and the State to expedite final deci- sions, in order that the owners of both homes and vacant property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way may be given definite information within a reasonable time as to whether their property is to be taken and, if it is, how much they can expect to be.paid, when they can expect to receive the money, and from whom they will be paid. -3- Village of Edina January 9, 1956 ,To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway,, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right - of -way. On July 25, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold-up until January 1, 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long- considered 1162nd Street" Cross -town highway. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way during the past six months. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments, full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956. On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials.. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right -of -way, which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right -of -way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side,. would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes. At a "250 foot width right -of -ray, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. 1511 A new design for the grade separation between the Cross -town route and Highway 100, which includes the area between Ryan on the east, Warren on the west, just north of 64th on the south and just north of 62nd.on the north, as shown on Proposal 4, requires taking only nine homes, on of eighteen as planned originally. This means that not more than nineteen and possibly only thirteen homes, would have to be taken to provide a modern high- way of almost two miles in length. Unless the ban on building permits is continued, however, many more homes will be built in the near future which would have to be acquired later when all final arrangements for the proposed highway are completed. This, of course, would make the cost of the project considerably higher. Both the County Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways, State of Minnesota, have approved the alignment shown on Plan 4. The proposed Cross -town route is not a new idea. It was proposed in a report dated November 10, 1949, by.the Minneapolis City Planning Commission, which suggested the need for such a route to connect Trunk Highway 55 on the east and Trunk Highway 100 on the west via the South City limits, or 62nd Street. The Minneapolis City Council in 1950 directed the City Engineer to make field surveys, to discuss the need for the route with the County, Airport Commission and Edina and Richfield, and approved the route in principle. On September 30, 1955, the Minneapolis City Council authorized the initiation of condemna- tion for the route from Portland Avenue east to 46th Avenue, The Minneapolis City Council has also authorized the withholding of building permits along a portion of the proposed route. This.action resulted in a builder going to court to force the issuance of a permit. On December 6, 1955 Judge Carroll, in the case of Ole Hansen vs. City of Minneapolis, continued the matter until September 28, 1956. It is believed that the judge felt the city should not be compelled at this time to issue a building permit which would allow the improvement of property that the city might later condemn and thus put the taxpayers to an extra cost The case was continued upon condition that if by September 28, the city had proceeded with reasonable dispatch and was making progress towards the con- demnation and completion of the project, the writ of mandamus would not issue. It is the hope of at least one chief official for the city that some right -of- way can be purchased in 1956. The County Board highway committee is definitely in favor of expediting the acquisition of the necessary land and starting construction as soon as poss- ible. This committee has authorized the County Highway Engineer to coordinate the activities of the various agencies concerned. The State Highway Department is prepared to take its proper role of acquiring and building the cloverleaf at Highway 100 as soon as it is convinced the County, City, and Villages concerned are serious about the route. The State has already ordered work to be done on designing the separation at Trunk High- way 100, and while there may be some minor changes in the final design from that shown on Plan 4, the elongated cloverleaf proposed is generally accept- able, and State officials feel Plan 4 is the most economical and has proper design. -2- As the matter stands now, the route within the limits of Edina .'would be, financed as follows: The Village would be required to bujy the right -of -way from where the proposed route intersects Valley View Road west of Highway 100 at Warren Avenue to the point where V lley View Road extended intersects the proposed route between Brookview Avenue and PeaCeddle Avenue, with the excep- tion of the land within the cloverleaf area at. Highway 1006 The cloverleaf and land necessary for it would be a State cost. The County, with some State funds, would pay for construction. It is hoped the County would be able to budget at least some of the construction costs in the 1956 budget. If, how- ever, Congress passes a revised and expanded Federal program designed to aid urban projects of this type, in connection with the President's request for heavier Federal financing of highways, then the cost to the Village would probably be reduced, as the cost of the necessary land would probably be a participating cost. The above discussion relates primarily to that portion of the proposed high- way from Highway 100 east to Xerxes. The whole program contemplates continu- ing the road to Lake Minnetonka, and while construction west of Warren Avenue is not likely for at least five years, with practically no building in the proposed right of way at present in the West portion of Edina, efforts should be made to secure this right -of -way as soon as possible and the ban on build- ing should apply to the proposed location throughout Edina. Efforts should be made immediately to have the necessary engineering done on the balance of the proposed right -of -way west of Warren Avenildi If the project was considered necessary in 1949, by the Minneapolis City Plan Commission, after a thorough study, it is even more necessary now) 7 years later, with the tremendous building developments in the south suburban area. The Metropolitan Sports Stadium, and the Southdale Shopping Center, which probably would not have been built as far south as they are unless there had been a terrific amount of home building in the general area, only intensify the need+ There. are many advantages to Edina to have a route designed for tomorrowts traffic crossing the Village from east to west: Such a road would relieve 50th Street, which is already badly crowded, and it would make it possible for Valley View Road, 66th Street and to some extent 70th Street, to be purely residential streets. It is believed that the number of homes needed for .Proposal 4 represents.the absolutely minimum that can be taken. On the basis of the above facts, it is therefore recommended that you approve in principle Plan 4 and authorize the continued holding of building permits ana subdivision plats within the limits of the .proposed right-of-way-until October 1, 1956. If you concur, we should th,eh secure as soon as possible . accurate estimates on the ,costs of the land in- tolved and consti'udtion costs and work with the County, the City, and the State to expedite final deci- sions, in order that the owners of both homes and vacant property within the limits of the proposed right, -of -way may be given definite information within a reasonable time as to whether their property is to be taken and, if it is, how much they can expect to be paid, when they can expect to receive the money, and from whom they will be paid. -3- Village of Edina -- January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right - of -way. On July 25, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to.hold up until January 1,.1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long- considered "'12nd Street" Cross -town highway. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the,proposed right -of -way during the past six months. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying'of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments, full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956. On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village.limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade.separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right -of -way, which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to .eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right -of -way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes. At a 250 foot width right -of -way, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. -1- A new design for the grade separation between the Cross -town route and Highway 100, which includes the area. between Ryan on the east, Warren on the west, just north of 64th on the south, and just north of 62nd on the north, as shown on Proposal 4, requires taking only nine homes, instead of eighteen as planned originally. This means that not more than nineteen and possibly only thirteen homes, would have to be taken to provide a modern high- way of almost two miles in length. Unless the ban on building permits is continued, however, many more homes will be built in the near future which would have to be acquired later when all final arrangements for the proposed highway are completed. This, of course, would make the cost of the project considerably higher. Both the County Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways, State of Minnesota, have approved -the alignment shown on Plan 4. The proposed Cross -town route is not a new idea. It was proposed in a report dated November 10, 1949, by the Minneapolis City Planning Commission, which suggested the need for such-a route to connect Tank Highway 55 on the east and Trunk Highway 100 on the west via the South City limits, or 62nd Street. The Minneapolis City Council in 1950 directed the City Engineer to make field surveys, to discuss the need for the route with the County, Airport Commission and Edina and Richfield, and approved the route in principle. On September 30, 1955, the Minneapolis City Council authorized the initiation of condemna- tion for the route from Portland Avenue east to 46th Avenue. The Minneapolis City Council has also authorized the withholding of building permits along a portion of the proposed route. This action resulted in a builder going to court to force the'issuance of a permit. On December 6, 1955 Judge Carroll, in the case of Ole Hansen, vs. City of Minneapolis, continued the matter until September 28, 1956. It is believed that the judge felt the city should not be compelled at this time to issue a building permit which would allow the improvement of property that the city might later condemn and thus put,the taxpayers to an extra cost. The case was continued upon condition that if by September 28, the city had proceeded with reasonable dispatch and was making progress towards the con- demnation and completion of the project, the writ of mandamus would not issue. It is the hope of at least one chief official for the city that some right -of- way can be purchased in 1956. The County Board highway committee is definitely in favor of expediting the acquisition of the necessary land and starting construction as soon as poss- ible. This committee has authorized the County Highway Engineer to coordinate the activities of the various agencies concerned. The State Highway Department is prepared to take its proper role of acquiring and building the cloverleaf at Highway 100 as soon as it is convinced the County, City, and Villages concerned are serious about the route. The State has already ordered work to be done on designing the separation at Trunk High- way 100, and while there may be some minor changes in the final design from that shown on Plan 4, the elongated cloverleaf proposed is generally accept- able, and State officials feel Plan '4 is the most economical and has proper design. -2- i - %; As the matter, stands now, the route within the limits of Edina would be financed as follows: The Village would,be required to buy, the right -of way from where the proposed route intersects Valley View Road west of Highway 100 at Warren Avenue to the point where'V lley View Road extended intersects the proposed route between Brookview Avenue and Peacedale Avenue, with the excep- tion of the land within the cloverleaf area at Highway 100. The cloverleaf and land necessary for it would be a State cost, The County, with some State funds, would pay for construction. It is hoped the County would be able to -• budget at least some of the construction costs in the 1958 budget. If, how- ever, Congress passes a revised and expanded Federal program designed to aid urban projects of this type, in connection with the President's request for heavier Federal finan©ing of highways, then the cost to the Village would probably be reduced, as the cost of the necessary land would probably be a participating cost. The above discussion relates primarily to that portion of the proposed high- way from Highway 100 east to Xerxes. The whole.program contemplates continu- ing the road to Lake Minnetonka.,-and while construction west of Warren Avenue is not likely for at. least five years, with practically no building in the proposed right of way at present in the West portion of Edina,.efiorts should be made to secure this right -of -way as soon as possible and the ban otft.build- ing should apply to the proposed locA16h the6ughout Edina ,f Efforts should be made immediately to have the necessary engineering done on the balande of the proposed right-of-way west of Warren Avenue. If the project was considered necessary in 1949, by the Minneapolis City Plan Commission, after a thorough study, it is even more nec;ssar..y now4 7 years later, with the tremendous building developments in the south suburban area. The Metropolitan Sports Stadium, and the Southdale Shopping Center, which probably would not have been built as far.south as they are unless there had been a terrific amount of home building in the general area, only intensify the need. There are many advantages to Edina to have a route designed for tomorrowts traffic crossing the Village from east to west. Such a road would relieve 50th Street,'which is already badly crowded, and it would make it possible for Valley View Road, 66th Street and to some extent 70th Street, to be purely residential streets. It is believed that the number of homes needed for Proposal 4 represents the absolutely minimum that can be takent On the basis of the above-facts, it is therefore recommended that you approve in principle Plan 4 and authorize the continued holding of building permits and subdivision plats within the limits of the proposed right -of :way until October 1, 1956. If you concur, we should then secure as soon as possible' accurate estimates on the costs of the land involved and construction costs and work with the County, the City, and the State to expedite final deci- sions, in order that the owners of both homes and vacant property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way may be given definite information within a reasonable time as to whether their property is to be taken and, if it is, how much they can expect to be paid, when they can expect to receive,the money, and from whom they will be paid. -3- Village of Edina January 9, 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right - of -way. On July 25, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 1, 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long- considered 1162nd Street" Cross -town highway. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way during the past six months. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments, full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956. On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con- templates a 300 foot wide right -of -way, which is undoubtedly more than ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right -of -way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be. provided. -When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France: At the 300,foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the taking of ten homes. At a 250 foot width right -of -ray, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. -1- 7. A new design for the grade separation between the Cross -town route and Highway 100, which includes the area between Ryan on the east, Warren on the west, just north of 64th on the south and just north of 62nd on the north, as shown on Proposal 4, requires taking only nine homes, instead of eighteen as planned originally. This means that not more than nineteen and possibly only thirteen homes, would have to be taken to provide a modern high- way of almost two miles in length. Unless the ban on building permits is continued,however, many more homes will be built in the near future which would have to be acquired later when all final arrangements for the proposed highway are completed. This, of course, would make the cost of the project considerably higher. Both the County Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways, State of Minnesota, have approved the alignment shown on Plan 4. The proposed Cross -town route is not a new idea. It was proposed in a report dated November 10, 1949, by the Minneapolis City Planning Commission, which suggested the need for such a route to connect Tank Highway 55 on the east and Trunk Highway 100 on the west via the South City limits, or 62nd Street. The Minneapolis City Council in 1950 directed the City Engineer to make field surveys, to discuss the need for the route with the County, Airport Commission and Edina and Richfield, and approved the route in principle. On September 30, 1955, the Minneapolis City Council authorized the initiation of condemna- tion for the route from Portland Avenue east to 46th Avenue. The Minneapolis City Council has also authorized the withholding of building permits along a portion of the proposed route. This action resulted in a builder going to court to force the issuance of a permit. On December 6, 1955 Judge Carroll, in the case of Ole Hansen vs. City of Minneapolis, continued the matter until September 28, 1956. It is believed that the judge felt the city should not be compelled at'this time to issue a building permit which would allow the improvement of property that the city might later condemn and thus put the taxpayers to an extra cost. The case was continued upon condition that if by.September 28, the city had . proceeded with reasonable dispatch and was making progress towards the con- demnation and completion of the project, the writ of mandamus would not issue. It is the hope of at least one chief official for the city that some right -of- way can be purchased in 1956. The County Board highway committee is definitely in favor of expediting the acquisition of the necessary land and starting construction as soon as poss- ible. This committee has authorized the County Highway Engineer to coordinate the activities of the various agencies concerned. The State Highway Department is prepared to take its proper role of acquiring and building the cloverleaf at Highway 100 as soon as it is convinced the County, City, and Villages concerned are serious about the route. The State has already ordered work to be done on designing the separation at Trunk High- way 100, and while there may be some minor changes in the final design from that shown on Plan 4, the elongated cloverleaf proposed is generally accept- able, and State officials feel Plan 4 is the most economical and has proper design. -2- As the matter stands now, the route within the, limits of Edina would be financed as follows: The Village would be required to bur the right -of -way from where the proposed route intersects Valley View Road west of Highway 100 at Warren Avenue to the point where V lley View Road extended intersects the proposed route between Brookview Avenue and Peacedale Avenue, with the excep- tion of the land within the cloverleaf area at:Highway 100. The cloverleaf, and land necessary for it would be a State cost. The County, with some State funds, would pay for construction. It i9 hoped the County would be able to budget at least some of the construction costs in the 1958 budget. If, how- ever, Congress passes a revised and expanded Federal program designed to aid urban projects of this type, in connection with the'President's request for heavier Federal financing of highways, then the cost to the Village would probably be reduced, as the cost of the necessary land would probably be a participating.co5tc The above discussion relates primarily to that portion of the proposed high- way from Highway 100 east to Xerxes. The whole program contemplates continu -� ing the road to Lake Minnetonka, and while construction west of Wdl ren Avenue is not likely for at least five years, with practically no building in the proposed right of way at present in theWest portion of Edina, efforts should be made to secure this right -of -way as soon as possible and the ban on biiild4 ing should apply to the proposed location throughout Edina. Efforts should be made immediately to have the necessary engineering done on the balance of the proposed right-.of-way west of Warren Avenue. If the project was considered necessary in 1949, by the Minneapolis City Plan Commission, after a thorough study, it is even more necessary now, 7 years later, with the tremendous building developments in the south suburban area. The Metropolitan Sports Stadium, and the Southdale Shopping Center, which probably would not have been built as far south as they'are unless:there had been a terrific amount of home building in the general area, only.intensify the need. There are many advantages to Edina to have a route designed for tomorrowts traffic crossing the Village.from east to west. Such a road would relieve 50th Street, which is already badly crowded, and it would make it possible for Valley View Road, 66th Street and to some extent 70th Street, to be purely residential streets. It is believed that the number of homes needed for Proposal 4 represents the absolutely minimum that can be takent On the basis of the above facts, it is therefore recommended that you approve in principle Plan 4 and authorize the continued holding of building permits and subdivision plats within the limits of the proposed right-of-way until October 1, 1956? If you concur, we should then secure as soon as possible accurate estimates on the costs`of the land involved and construction costs and work with the County, the City, and the State to expedite final deci- sions, in order that the owners of both homes and vacant property within the limits of the proposed right_of -way may be given definite information within a reasonable time as to whether their property is to be taken and, if it is, how much they can expect to be paid, when they can expect to receive the money, and from whom they will be paid, -3- Village of Edina January 90 1956 To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Village Council From: Village Manager Subject: Report on Status of Proposed Cross -Town Highway, and Recommendation Concerning Continued Prohibition of Building within proposed right - of -way. On July 25, 1955, acting upon the information available at that time, the Village Council authorized the Village Manager and the Building Inspector to hold up until January 1, 1956, issuing any permits for new building within the area proposed as of that time for the route of the long- considered 1142nd Street" Cross -town highway. There have been a few requests for permits and some efforts to sub - divide presently unplatted property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way during the past six months. In practically all instances, we have been able to satisfy the parties concerned as to why we could not issue permits or recommend approval of the plats. Numerous persons have inquired concerning the buying of presently built homes in the general path of the proposed highway and we have attempted to give them all informa- tion available, but have made no recommendations as to whether they should or should not buy. During the past six months there have been several important developments, full details of which will be given in this report, which justify your having authorized the holding up of building permits until now and which justify your further authorization to continue such a hold for at least another nine months, or until October 1, 1956. On October 24, 1955, you authorized having consulting engineers to do the necessary work to provide a definite center line and right -of -way for the Cross -town from the east Village limits at Xerxes Avenue and 62nd Street to Trunk Highway 100. This work has been completed at no cost to the Village, and presented for your consideration tonight are four proposed routes, which include a proposed grade separation at Trunk Highway 100. The engineering on these four proposals was based on an aerial survey and photo of the area taken October 19, 1955, field surveys, and conferences with Village, County and State highway officials. A study of the proposals reveals that Plan No. 4 is the most feasible and most economical. It con - templates,a 300 foot wide right -of -way, which is undoubtedly more than 'ample and which can be narrowed at certain points to eliminate taking portions of existing homes. The 300 foot right -of -way would include all necessary ser- vice drives and it is firmly believed that this proposed highway should be a limited access road. The proposed design contemplates provision for six moving lanes of traffic, with a center division. The center division origin- ally would be 37 feet wide, and four moving lanes, two on either side, would be provided. When six lanes are needed, the center division would be narrowed to 13 feet. At several locations the highway would be depressed, with grade separations proposed at Valley View extended and at France. At the 300 foot width, from Ryan Avenue east to Xerxes, Proposal 4 would require the.taking of ten homes. At a 250 foot width right -of -gray, Proposal 4 would require taking only four or five homes. -1- A new design for the grade separation between the Cross -town route and Highway'100, which includes the area between Ryan on the east, Warren on the west just north of 64th on the south and just north of 62nd on the north, as shown on Proposal 4, requires taking only nine homes, instead of eighteen as planned originally. This means that not more than nineteen and possibly only thirteen homes, would have to be taken to provide a modern high- way of almost two miles in length. Unless the ban on building permits is continued; however, many more homes will be built in the near future which would have to be.acquired later when all final arrangements for the proposed highway are.completed. This; of course, would make the cost of the project considerably higher: Both the County Engineer and the Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways, State of Minnesota,,have approved the alignment shown on Plan 4. The proposed Cross -town route is not a new idea, It was proposed in a report dated November 10, 1949, by the Minneapolis City Planning Commission,,which suggested the need for such a route to connect Trunk Highway 55 on the east and Trunk Highway.100 on the west via the South dity limits, or 62nd Street. The•Minneapolis City Council in 1950 directed the City Engineer to make field surveys, to discuss the need for the route with the County, Airport Commission and Edina and Richfield, and approved the route in principle, On September 30, 1955, the Minneapolis City Council authorized the initiation of condemna- tion for the route from Portland Avenue east to 46th Avenue. The Minneapolis City Council has also authorized the withholding of building permits along a portion of the proposed route. This action resulted in a builder going to court'to force the issuance of a permit. On December 6, 1955 Judge Carroll, in the case of Ole Hansen vs. City of Minneapolis, continued the matter until September 28, 1956• It is believed that the judge felt the city should not be compelled at this time to issue a building permit which would allow the improvement of property that the city might later condemn and thus put the taxpayers to an extra cost. The case was continued upon condition that if by September 28, the city had proceeded with reasonable dispatch and was making progress towards the con- demnation and completion of the project, the writ of mandamus would not issue. It is the hope of at least one chief official for the city that some right -of- way can be purchased in 1956. The County Board highway committee is definitely in favor of expediting the acquisition of the necessary land and starting construction as soon as poss- ible. This committee has authorized the County Highway Engineer to coordinate the activities of the various agencies concerned.. The State Highway Department is prepared to take its proper role of acquiring and building the cloverleaf at Highway 100 as soon as it is convinced the County, City, and Villages concerned are serious about the route. The State has already ordered work to be done on designing the separation at Trunk High- way 100, and while there may be some minor changes in the final design from that shown on Plan 4, the elongated cloverleaf proposed is generally accept- able, and State officials feel Plan 4 is the most economical and has proper design. -2- .. -.. « . As the matter stands now, the route within the limits of Edina would be financed as follows: The Village would be required to buy the right-of-way from where the proposed route intersects Valley View Road west of Highway 100 at Warren Avenue to-the point where V lley View.Road extended intersects the proposed route between Brookview Avenue and Peacedale Avenue, with the excep- tion of the land within the cloverleaf area at Highway 100. The cloverleaf and land necessary for it would be a State costi. The County, with some State funds, would pay for construction. It is hoped the County would be able t6 budget at least some of the construction costs in the 1958 budget. If,,how- ever, Congress passes a revised and expanded Federal program designed to aid urban projects of this type, in connection with the Presidents request for heavier Federal financing of highways, then the lost to the Village would probably be reduoed, as the cost of the necessary land would probably be a participating cost. The above discussion relates primarily to that portion of the proposed high- way from Highway 100 east to Xerxes. The whole program contemplates continu- ing the road to Lake Minnetonka, and while construction west of Warren Avenue, is not likely for at least five years, with practically no building in the proposed right of way at present in the West portion of Edina, efforts should' be made to secure this right -of -way as soon as possible and the ban on build ing should apply to the proposed location throughout Edina. Efforts ehbuld be made immediately to have the necessary engineering done on the balance of the proposed right-of-way west of Warren Avenue. If the project was considered necessary in 1949, by the Minneapolis City Plan Commission, after a thorough study, it is even more neeesary now, 7 years later, with the tremendous building developments in the south suburban area. The Metropolitan Sports Stadium, and the Southdale Shopping Center,.which . probably would not have been built as far south as they are unless there had been a terrific amount of home building in the general area, only,intensify the need. There are many advantages to Edina to have a route designed for tomorrowts traffic crossing the Village from east to west. Such a road would relieve 50th Street, which is already badly crowded, and it would make it possible for Valley View Road, 66th Street and to some extent 70th Street, to be purely residential streets. It is believed that the number of homes needed for Proposal 4 represents the absolutely minimum that can be taken. On the basis of the above facts, it is therefore recommended that you approve in principle Plan 4 and authorize the continued holding of building permits and subdivision plats within the limits of the proposed right-of-way until October 1, 1956. If you concur, we should then secure as soon as possible accurate estimates on the costs of the land involved and construction costs and work with-the County, the City, and the State to expedite final deci- sions, in order that the owners of both homes and vacant property within the limits of the proposed right -of -way may be given definite information within a reasonable time as to whether their property is to be taken and, if it is, how much they can expect to be,paid, when they can expect to receive the money, and from whom they will be paid. -3- PETITION SUBMITTED AND ORDERED MURnM OF 8/9/54 PETITION FOR LIMITATION OF WIDTH OF VALLEY VIEW ROAD' Dated TO THE HONORABLE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA: The-, undersigned being owners of not less than 51%6 in frontage of the real property abutting on the following; streets in said' village; I/W/'Z and Between Between lli' Ayr- and �,uggz--6 Between AeUOZ4 x&iF and Be twe en V 41 6 an - � Between and Between and do hereby petition that the total width of avement on Valley View Road from '%1- 1944ale Ave. west to Normandale Avje. �;ighway 100) be kept at a knicim= "Of' 30 feet, SIGNATURE OF OWNERS ADRESS DESCRIPTION OF PROPERT)t- -1� P2 SIP 1,041. itv, Fe z. M-MAK-21-11% ZA? I Arm 5 % MMMA-c "M Ed MP-'OL'ArA 0!*rv4,, W- MIR 4 10 HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 440 COURTHOUSE Minneapolis 15, Minnesota L.,P. ZIMMERMAN, ENGINEER zw September 1001954 Mr. Evald C. Bank Clerk, Village of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota Dear Sir: GENEVA 4941 - 4714Q' We are in receipt of order No. 23952 designating certain streets in the Village of Edina and the City of Minneapolis as State Aid Road No. 62. Said Resolution was adopted by the Board of.Hennepin County Commissioners on November 24, 1953, by the City Council of Minneapolis on November 271, 1953,. and by the Village Council of Edina on December 14, 1953 The designation in said order reads as follows: "Begin- ning at Trunk Highway No. 100 near the junction with County Road #38 in the Village of Edina; thence easterly along Valley View Road to West 62nd.Street, along West 6;2nd Street to State Aid Road #17, at the junction of West 62nd,Street and France Avenue." "Beginning again on State Aid.Road #17, at the junction of West 60th Street and France Avenue;,thence east along West 60th Street to the east corporate limits of the Village of Edina, which point is also the west corporate limits of the City of Minneapolis; thence continuing east along West 60th .Street in the City of Minn - eapolis to Sunrise Drive; thence along Sunrise Drive to West 58th Street;'thence east along West 58th Street to Trunk Highway No. 65, at the junction of West 58th Street and.Lyndale Avenue." ''Beginning again on Trunk Highway #65, at the junction of West 61st Street and Lyndale Avenue; thence east along West 61st Street and East 61st Street to Chicago Avenue; thence north along Chicago Avenue to East 58th Street; thence east along East 58th Street to State Aid Road #53, near.the junction of East 58th Street and 46th Avenue South, and there.terminating.t1 Very truly yours,' L. P.'Zimmerman, County Engineer By: C E. J. Tomczyk, R%W Negotiator EJT : lck r EDINA CHAMBER Of COMMERCE FIFTIETH AND FRANCE AREA - EDINA, MINNESOTA J "Community of Flowers" August 4, 1954. RESOLUTION READ AND ORDERED PLACED ON FILE MINUTES OF 8/9/54 Village Council, Village of Edina, 4801 IV 50th Street, Minneapolis, 10, Minn. Gentlemen: I have been authorized by the Edina Chamber of Commerce.to forward the following resolution to you and to the County Commissioners of Hennepin County. This resolution was adopted only after three monthly meetings had been devoted to a discussion of the problem during which time both sides of the quest- ion were discussed and presented by both proponents' and opponents of the measure. Yours truly, HAB:bh R E S O L U T I O N VEJEREAS, the Edina Chamber of Commerce has for several years re- cognized the existance of a problem caused by traffic congestion in 3butTmaA Iuinneapolis and Edina and believes that its solution lies only in a carefully planned highway program based on competent surveys of traffic density, traffic flow, cost and financing;'that the following constructive and alleviating measures now being undertaken permit time for these surveys: 1. The highway department of the State of Mime sota has plans drawn and action begun for the widening and straightening of highway No. 5, also known as 78th Street. 2. The flow of traffic on 1'lest 50th Street in Minneapolis will be materially speeded by the operation and enforcement of the ordinance recently adopted by the Minneapolis City Council regulating and prohititing parking on said street. VIHEREAS, the residents of Hennepin County have received no authorita- tive information relative to the estimated cost of a cross -towrn highway; VIBEREAS, the point on the western border of Edina where a proposed high- way would leave the Village of Edina limits and the proposed route west of highway No. 100, have not been revealed, and VMEREAS, no plan for financing a cross -town highway project has been revealed to the residents of Hennepin County; BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED by the Edina Chamber of Commerce in its monthly meeting assembled, that at this time it reconunends that the County Commissioners of Hennepin County and the Village of Edina, both oppose any plan which will be financed by an increase in real estate taxes to be born by the residents of Hennepin County a rd the Village of Edina; and that said County Commissioners and Village Council apprise the tax payers of all plans relevant to a cross- -town highway. -2- The foregoing resolution is certified to be a true, complete and exact copy of the original resolution passed by the'Edina Chamber of Commerce on July 29, 1954 and of record in the minutes of that meeting. Executive Secretary Edina Chamber of Commerce Subseribed and sworn to before me thisq,6Lday of August, 1954. HAZEL F. WMDMAN Notary Pubic, Hennepin County, Minn. My Commission Expires Nov. 12, 1860. _ X _ Tom J WAInut 6 -7647 PETERSON 1u�iaruy '!j�i�W{F INC. 3903 SUNNYSIDE AVENUE,* MINNEAPOLIS 10, MINNESOTA REALTORS • BROKERS • MORTGAGES • INSURANCE October 29s 1957 Mr. Arthur C. Bredesen., Mayor Village of Edina - Edina,, Minnesota Dear Mr. Bredesen As you may know., I'own some lots that will be' effected by the cross town highway and have,, had no relief from taxes., likewise I am refrained from issuance of a building permit by the village® Sometime ago the County Commissioner stated that they would recommend waiver of taxes on the vacant 'lots. effected, but the request should come from the Village. The continuance of taxes without any relief soon will overcome the value of the lots as we are now coming to the third year of taxes. Thereforeg I urgently request that consideration be given to establishing some form of relief. RHP /et