Laserfiche WebLink
csa i <br />b -F* <br />3/12/62 43 <br />. :P* <br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE <br />EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL, HELD MONDAY, <br />EDINA VILLAGE HALL <br />MARCH 12, 1962, AT 7:OO PIMI, IN THE <br />Members answering Rollcall were MacMillan, VanValkenburg and Bredesen, <br />Dickson arrived immediately after Rollcall. <br />Trustee <br />NO HEARING TONIGHT ON "PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT" ORDINANCE! <br />announced to the audience, that contrary to notices circulated privately by <br />Mayor Bredesen <br />various citizens' groups, Hearing would not be conducted this evening on a <br />proposed "Planned Industrial District" ordinance ; that the Plannini Commission <br />was not yet ready with its formal recommendation to the Council; that there would <br />certainly be publicity before any official public hearing is held. <br />MINUTES of Regular Meeting of February 26, 1962, were approved as submitted, by <br />motion VanValkenburg, seconded by MacMillan and carried . <br />SANITARY TRUNK SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. C-2 TABLED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING, This <br />being a blizzardy evening, after a day of heavy snow, Mayor Bredesen asked those <br />in the audience if they felt there were some persons who were kept away from this <br />official hearing because of the weather. <br />been unable to leave their homes, but inasmuch as there were over a hundred <br />present, Council decided to go ahead with the Hearing, <br />of Publication in Edina-Morningside Courier March 1 and 8, 1962 of "Notice of <br />Public Heaking on Trunk and Lateral Sanitary Sewer and Lift Station", which <br />affidavit was approved as to form and drdered placed on file, as was affidavit <br />of mailing of Notice of Hearing to owners of affected properties. <br />reviewed for Council and audience% the Estimated Cost of the proposed pr'oject <br />(the route and assessment district for which was set forth in detail in the <br />Notice of Hearing), the Estimated Cost and proposed assessment therefor being as <br />follows : <br />Some present felt their neighbors had <br />Clerk-presented Affidavit <br />Manager Hyde <br />Construction Cost $664,116.00 <br />Engineering and Clerical 53,129.28 <br />Capitalized Interest 71,724.53 <br />Share of Cost of C-1 140,568.57 <br />$929,538.38 <br />Assessments - <br />Trunk Charge - Per acre, for unplatted land - $770.95 <br />Trunk Charge - Per front foot - fot platted lots - $3.75 - (Maximum of 150' to be <br />assessed against any one lot, if lots of greater footage cannot be subdivided <br />into smaller Lots) <br />Lateral Charge - For properties abutting the route of the trunk sewer, which can <br />connect directly to the trunk, without additional lateral sewer construction - <br />$6.50 per front foot. <br />Mr. Hyde reported this is the second Hearing held on this proposed project; that <br />it was first heard along with the "Nine-Mile Creeks1 Sanitary Sewer; that, at that <br />time it was decided to over-size the C-1 sewer in. order to accommodate that area <br />which would have to tie into it in the future, <br />proposed to be served by Trunk Sewer No, C-2 is in large homesteads; that there are <br />some original farms which are ripe for development; that the Village cannot <br />guarantee any private sewer installation for any length of time; that the Village <br />has strengthened its ordinance governing private sewer installations , and now <br />requires percolation tests before such private systems can be installed; that out <br />of 32 such tests taken, 16 have been found to be unsatisfactory; that some of the <br />soil in this area will support private systems, and some will not; that the sewer <br />is being proposed again at this time because some of the farms in the area have <br />been sold and are being held by people who intend to develop them, and because the <br />building of the Junior High School and'the opening of the Catholic School will <br />intensify development; also, that what the Village is trying to do is to decide <br />whether to put the trunk sewer in now, or nhether to wait until the area is <br />developed. He added that the pDOpOSed Trunk Sewer has not been petitioned for. <br />the improvement, signed by some 130 property owners. <br />construction of the im@vement at this time will put an artificial pressure on <br />land owners to do something with their properties, and that Edina would be better <br />off to develop more slowly, Mr. Shuster asked that he be allowed to voice a very <br />strong objection. <br />that there are hundreds of acres in the area which land owners want to keep; that <br />he could not sell his land unless he "gave it away"; that he'believes the Council <br />does not want to impose a hardship on owners, and that while Manager and Council <br />have done an excellent job of planning, this project is coming too early. <br />stated that Mr, Ralph Overholt, owner of several acres, had called from Florida by <br />phone, voicing his objection. <br />Stating that a part of the area <br />Mr, Gordon Shuster, 5809 Dewey Hill Road, presented petition in objection to <br />Stating he feels that <br />Mr, Me1 Jensen, 6939 Valley View Road, told Council this project is premature; <br />He <br />*-