Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves replat and vacates utility easement as neighbors fund city purchase and conservation easement
Summary
After a contested public hearing, the council approved two resolutions to replat three lots, vacate a public utility easement and record a conservation easement on an outlot the city will purchase; neighbors agreed to special assessments to reimburse the city.
The Edina City Council approved two related actions after a public hearing: Resolution 2025-11 to record the replat (preliminary and final plat) and Resolution 2025-10 to vacate a public utility easement on property near Muir Lake in the city’s northwest quadrant.
Director Teague explained the council previously approved the city’s acquisition of the outlot and a 99-year conservation easement in November 2024; the items before the council were the final replat and the vacation of a standard drainage and utility easement so new easements could be established along revised lot lines.
The council heard multiple public speakers. Resident Jim Grotz cited Chapter 429 of Minnesota Statutes and raised legal questions about the use of special assessments for land acquisition. Neighbor Laurie Gross said she did not see a public benefit to what she described as a small, heavily wooded lot and warned about precedent. Property owner Andrew Carter, who said he bought one of the lots to keep it green, told the council neighbors had coordinated to preserve the parcel.
Director Teague said the council in November had approved assessment agreements and that the city’s acquisition would be fully reimbursed over time under those agreements. He told council members the city does not have a minimum lot size requirement for conservation easements and that the outlot was being placed in outlot status as unbuildable.
Council discussion focused heavily on process questions: several council members and residents criticized the order in which the proposal was presented (council consideration before planning commission review) and urged staff to incorporate clearer procedures if similar transactions are proposed in future code revisions. Member Agnew defended the approach as a creative, previously used method to add public land paid for by adjacent property owners; Member Risser said the council lacked the planning commission’s review before earlier votes and raised concerns about cost and precedent.
Member Agnew moved and Member Jackson seconded adoption of the two resolutions. The motions carried; the council closed the public hearing and directed staff to reflect on procedural changes for future conservation-easement proposals.
