Laserfiche WebLink
10 /7 /36 21% adopt Ordinance as submitted: <br />ORDINANCE NO. 261-78 I AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 261 (ZONING ORDINANCE) <br />OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA, ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL OFFICE <br />, BUILDING DISTRICT <br />THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: <br />Revised Ordinances of the Village of Edina, as amended, is hereby further amended <br />by adding at the end of paragraph 1 of said Section 10, an additional sub-paragraph <br />as follows: <br />Section 1. Section 10, Office Building District, of Ordinance No. 261 of the <br />"(f) <br />Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after <br />Tract H, Registered Land Survey No. 1050. <br />its passage and publication according to law. <br />Mofion for waiver of second reading thereof and for adoption of Ordinance as submitted <br />was seconded by Rixe,.and on Rollcall there were four ayes and no nays, as follows: <br />' <br />en, aye; and the Ordinance was <br />STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. 69 ASSESSMENT HEARING CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 23: ASSESS- <br />MENT APPROVED. <br />Improvement (Hawkes Lake Outlet Sewer and Laterals) pursuant to an objection by Mr. <br />Howard Green that his property does not drain to the system. Village Engineer.Hite <br />explained to the Council that an investigation has been made by the Engineering <br />Department; that Mr. Green's property does drain to the stub line which was <br />constructed through an easement to drain the rear property of Mr. Green and his <br />neighbors; that the lots in this particular area between Grove Street and Benton <br />Avenue are sufficiently deep to be divided, and that this storm sewer will drain <br />the future street. <br />the inlet is too high to drain the area, the owners do not propose to divide their <br />properties and did not want the storm sewer installed in the first place. <br />his arguments, Mr. Green, whose address is 5417 Grove St., presented opposition <br />petition signed by himself and eight other residents of this immediate area. <br />Hite presented topographic maps, showing drainage from the property to the storm <br />sewer line. <br />sewer, VanValkenburg moved for approval of assessment as tabulated. <br />by Rix and unanimously carried. (See Resolution of later in Meeting, Adopting and <br />Confirming Assessment). <br />Hearing had been continued on the assessment for this Storm Sewer <br />Mr. Green vehemently disputed Mr. Hite's statements, saying <br />To support <br />Mr. <br />Basing his action on the top0 maps showing drainage to the storm <br />Motion seconded <br />EUBLZC.HEAR1NG ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT NO, BA-50 CONTINUED <br />UNTIL OCTOBER 21. <br />September 23rd because of objectim by residents to giving the Good Samaritan <br />Methodist Church "corner lot" assessment relief; that, on checking, the Village <br />finds it cannot assess the Church for the street surfacing because the Church <br />gave an easement for its 30 feet of Wycliffe Road on condition that it be assessed <br />for no street improvements except curb and gutter. Mr. Hyde recommended that the <br />Church be assessed at $3.47 per foot for 410 feet along Wycliffe Road, and that <br />the balance of the assessment be made against the properties at $9.52 per assess- <br />able fiat. Mr. Austin D. Norton, representing Good Samaritan Church, objected to <br />the residents being assessed the "church's share" of the street improvement, saying <br />that, had the street been condemned as was originally contemplated by the Village <br />when the Church refused to give land for street, the Village would have paid for <br />the land from the General Fund--that, because the Village did not assure itself <br />by legal means that the developers of Edina Highlands Lakeside Addition would pay <br />the cost of the improvement, this does not mean the present property owneTs in the <br />Addition should be required to pay it. He stated he feels the only fair way to <br />rhake the assessment is to determine the amount of assessment for street surfacing <br />and for the Village to pay the Church's share and assess the balance. Mr. Norton <br />also objected to what he called the "loading" of the assessment by including in <br />the cost of the project a 10% Engineering and Clerical Charge and adding "Capitalized <br />Interest". <br />where a street is put in along a section line, for properties on either side of the <br />line to be required to dedicate half the street; that, had the property been condemned <br />for street purposes the condemnation award and costs could have been assessed; that <br />because the developers installed sanitary sewer and water in Edina Highlands Lakeside <br />Addition at their own expense they had no obligation to pay for the street surfacing, <br />but that they did petition for street surfacing with the understanding that the lots <br />in Edina Highlands Lakeside Addition would be assessed for the entire cost of the <br />project, relieving the Church from the assessment therefor; that TOMePaaSan and <br />Spring Company were the sole owners of Edina Highlands Lakeside Addition at the time <br />this petition was presented, but that many lots have been sold off since petition was <br />entered. <br />not incorporated with BA-49, and Mr. Richard Curry, 5712 Ffycliffe Road, asked for <br />Manager Hyde reparted that this Hearing had been continued from <br />, <br />Planning Director Hite informed Council that it .has been general policy, <br />Mr.-John Manning, 5617 Wycliffe Road, inquired as to why this project was