<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 />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 />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;