1888-1989 Archive Minutes
Minutes 1958 - 1974
12/24/2013 8:08:58 AM
12/23/2013 11:47:18 AM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
10 /28/ 68 <br />273 i <br />assessment on a per foot basis was most appropriate for both sewer and water <br />and that the property is presently undeveloped. <br />the audience. <br />8. CONSTRUCTION OF OPENING, GRADING AND GRAVELING IN THE FOLLOWING: <br />West 72nd Street: from Bush-Lake.Road to the east line of Edina Interchange <br />Center 3rd Addition. <br />-Mr. Hite presented total estimated project cost at $43,148.95, proposed to <br />be assessed against all lots and blocks in Edina Interchange Center 3rd Addition <br />at $28,765.96 (2/3 of the cost) and against Lots 1 and 3, Block 1, Edina Inter- <br />change Center 2nd Addition 1st Replat at $7,191.49 (1/6 of the cost) for each <br />lot. Mr. Hite noted that this improvement has been initiated by the Village as <br />the result of the platting of Edina Interchange Third Addition and that it is <br />recommended by the Planning Commission and Planning Staff that this road be <br />installed from Edina Interchange 111 Addition across Edina Interchange 2nd <br />Addition to Bush Lake Road. <br />of Edina Interchange Center Second Addition has requested that those properties <br />be added to the list of properties to be assessed. <br />ing Maico, Inc., questioned the estimated construction cost, and protested.that <br />Maico would have to give up land that they had planned to use for future devel- <br />opment in their facilities, stating that the improvement is not necessary or <br />desirable to their operations and would reduce the value of :the Maico property. <br />Mr. Utne also pointed out that Maico would be responsible for future assess- <br />ments for, improvement of the street. Mr. Hite noted that the estimated cost <br />does not include cost of land acquisition and that Maico would be reimbursed <br />for any land whi-ch should be acquired for the roadway. Mr. Hite advised that <br />it has always been known that a road would be needed in this area but that it <br />had not been determined just where this road would go. He further stated that <br />without this road, 65 acres of prime industrial land would be served by only <br />one road. Discussion ensued as to traffic patterns in the area, and it was <br />pointed out that traffic from this area cannot ho through to the residential <br />area on West 70th Street. Mr. John Wright, representing Lew Bonn, said his <br />firm has purchased its particular lot over a year ago because they felt that <br />it was a safe location, t4at .their property will appear awkward and misplaced . <br />on a corner lot and that the property will be devalued. <br />road was not included when the plat was approved. <br />error had been made in the legal descrwion and that the notice should have <br />indicated the "west" rather than the "east" line of Edina Interchange Center <br />Third Additioq. Mr. Hite noted that when the building plans were submitted <br />for the Maico Bqilding, a 50% building expansion had been anticipated and <br />that the p,roposed road would not prevent this expansion. <br />concern that if this property should be taken for the roadway, Maico could <br />not build their proposed addition since they might not have enough land to <br />comply with Village Zoning Ordinances. <br />that, while future counc.i.1 cannot be bound by this council, he would recom- <br />mend that strong consideration be given to approyal of any necessary variances <br />and that if he were on the Council at that time, he would vote in f.avor of the <br />possible variance. <br />the road. Following considerable discussion, Mayor Bredesen suggested that <br />the hearing be continued so that Council could have an opportunity to study <br />the problems involved. <br />enlarged and becau.se of the error in the legal description, Councilman Van <br />Valkenburg offered the following resolution setting a new hearing date for <br />this improvemept and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION~PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON <br />OPENING, GRAPING AND GRAVELING <br />No objections were heard from <br />(See Resolution Ordering Improvements later in Minutes). <br />He advised that Mr. Antonio Bernardi, the owner <br />Mr. James Utne, represent- <br />u3 p. rn a u u <br />He noted that the <br />He was advised that an <br />Mr. Utne expressed <br />Mayor Bredesen advised for the record <br />Mr. Lek Bonn asked whose property would be benefitted by <br />Bec.ause $he area proposed to be assessed is to be <br />IMPROVEMENT NO. P-C-101 <br />1. <br />port as to the feasibility of the proposed imprcovement descqibed in the form <br />of Notice of Hearing set forth below, and as to the estimated cost of such <br />improvement, said report.is hereby approved and directed to be placed on file <br />in the office of the Village Clerk. <br />2. This Council shall meet on Monday, November 18,, 1968, at 7:OO p.m. in the <br />Edina Village Hall, to consider in public hearing the views of all persons <br />interested in said improvements. <br />3. The Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the time, <br />place and purpose of said meeting to be published in the official newspaper. <br />once a week for two successiv,e weeks, the second of which publication is to <br />be not less than three days from the date of said meeting, and to mail notice - <br />to all affected properties in substantially the following form: ~ <br />The Village Engineer,-having submitted to the Council a preliminary re- <br />T <br />- <br />.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.