Laserfiche WebLink
E/25/59 <br />?.:Ii!rJTES OF THE REGULN? :.:EETII"!G OF THE EDIPIA <br />VILLAGE CUUTICIL, HED KOEDAY , AUGUST 25 , 1958 <br />AT 7:oo P.r.I., AT THE EDII!A VILLLGE HALL <br />!.:embers ans::lering Rollcall xere Bank, Dickson, Kohler, Tupa and Bredesen. <br />!;inUtes of the Regular I.:eeting of .iugust 11, and of that adjourned portion of <br />the August 11 meeting held August 18, were approved as submitted by motion <br />Tupa, seconded by Kohler and carried, <br />FUBLIC HEARIKG OII FXPOSED ASSES§!.;EM' F@R SHTITARY SE,'ER IfIP,?OVE!EiT i?O. C-1 <br />(Construction of Sanitary Trunk Sewer and Appurtenances including Lift Station, <br />and of Lateral Connections to said Trunk Sewer). <br />"Tfotice of Assessnent Hearing" in Edina-Morningside Courier on July 31 and <br />Jugust 7, 1958, v~as submitted by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed <br />on file, Tabulaticn of Assessment vas read by Lianager Hyde; total cost of <br />proSect being $1,410,314.43; it being proposed to levy assessment as follows: <br />For the property yhich can b~ immediately served by the Trunk Sever - $3035 <br />per front foot for platted property and $675 per acre for unplatted property, <br />for the -- Trunk Se!:ler (fncluding Lift Station). For the property abutting the <br />Trunk SmJer, which is served in both Trunk and Lateral capacity by the Trunk, <br />95,85 per front foot in addition to the above stated Trunk Sewer Assessment, for <br />a Lateral Assessment. <br />County Road 18 north of the Roushar property (which will need an additional <br />"district sewer" to benefit from this present trunk seuer) Sl.10 per front <br />foot for platted property, and $225 per acre for unplatted property. <br />cases of platted property it is proposed that platted property vhich has more <br />than 150 feet of frontage, and winich has a deed restriction against subdivision, <br />v~Zll be assessed a maximum of 150 feet. <br />restriction against subdividing and Which is large enough to be divided into <br />tv:o or more legal lots will be assessed on the full frontage. <br />Affidavit of Fublication of <br />For the property north of Idine-ldile Creek or fronting on <br />In all <br />Platted property wnich has no deed <br />The audience for this Hearing numbered 28 persons. <br />Gr. John R. Loeqerinq, 6525 Tingdale Avenue, owner of Lots 16 to 13, inclusive, <br />Block 17, Xormandale Second .iddition (a total of 200 front feet), stated he has <br />been intending to put a subdivision restriction on these four lots but has not <br />yet done so, <br />would be sufficient to reduce his assessment to a total of 150 feet. <br />Attorney Hasselquist replied that, if the Council wishes to make this exception <br />it has the power so to do; but that it is always more proper to have sucl: kovenants <br />made in advance of formal action. <br />He inquired as to vrhether the placing of such restriction, nov, <br />Village <br />Dr. Erlinq Hansen, 6526 Tingdale Avenue, inquired about the method of assessing <br />his property, He ot;ns Lots 5 to 10, inclusive, Block 18, Xormandale Second <br />Addition, abutting Tingdale Avenue; and Lots 15,16 and 17, Block IS, abutting <br />Rolf Avenue--w?nich latter street is proposed to be vacated; only four lots <br />along the street being ovmed by a contractor vinb wishes that portion of the <br />street improved, and it being in Park Board plans to have street vacated. <br />f.!anager Hyde explained that because of the Park Board plans there is considerable <br />merit to cancelling the proposed assessment for Lots 15, 16 and 17. <br />fS. Robert Ostman, 5613 County Road #18, ovmer of acreage, protested paying "for <br />any more than the difference in the costs of the pipe", insofar as those properties -- -- - <br />outside the area irrmediately benefiting by this trunk are concerned, <br />reminded of the Improvement Hearing, at which time this area had been natified <br />of the method of assessment <br />He vias <br />1.k. Clarence Ostman, 5833 Olinger Road, protested paying $675 per acre for his <br />property, when the area to the I!orth and !'lest pays only $225 per acre. It was <br />explained to him that his property can be directly served by this Trunk, vhereas <br />the Xorth-and-:'iest area must have an additioaal "district ser.ler" for service. <br />Hr. Dvorak, 5605 County Road #18, asked about assessnent relief for snamp properties, <br />and was inforned that s::lamp properties have been relieved from assessnent on the <br />same basis as for Sanitary Sewer $53; from topographical maps on hand and where <br />low lands can be definitely classified as "swamp" or "pond". <br />XrO Elmer Cerna!:, oymer of ?$ acres near i'lalnut Ridge, complained that this assess- <br />ment is taxing him beyond his ability to pay. <br />serviced by the improvement must pay for it; that assessment is proposed to be levied on a 20-year basis in order that it might be more easily paid for, 3. <br />Cermal: protestd he had received his mailed notice too late to get detailed <br />information before the Hearing, <br />only; that official notice v:as published weeks before the Hearing. <br />I. <br />It was explained that the land <br />d. <br />He was informed that mailed notice is a courtesy