Laserfiche WebLink
i 7/12/65 <br />MINUTES OF THE REGYLAR MEETING OF THE <br />EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL, HELD MONDAY , JULY 12, 1965, - <br />EDINA VILLAGE HALL AT 7:OO P.M. <br />Answering Rollcall were Members MacMillan , Rixe , Tupa , VanValke&urg and Bredesen . <br />PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. Clerk presented Affidavit of Publication <br />in the Edina-Morningside Courier on July 1 and 8, 1965, and Affidavit of Mailing on <br />July 1, 1965. <br />to due notice given, Public Hearings were conducted on the following proposed improvements, <br />and action taken by Council as hereinafter recorded: <br />Affidavits were approvedas to fo& and ordered placed on file. Pursuant <br />. <br />A. &CONSTRUCTION OF LATERAL SANITARY SEWER AND APPURTENANCES IN THE FOLLOWING: <br />B. <br />C. <br />D. <br />E. <br />F. <br />G. <br />H. <br />Creek View Lane from Limerick Lane to cul-deysac. Estimate of Cost was given <br />at $10,033.23 to be assessed against 14 Lots at $716.66 per assessable lot. <br />comment or discussion was heard on this proposal. (See Resolution Ordering <br />Improvement later in Minutes . ) <br />CONSTRUCTION OF LATERAL NATERMAIN AND APPURTENANCES IN THE FOLLOWING : <br />Creek View Lane from Limerick Lane to Brook Drive. <br />at $9,650.96, to be assessed against 14 Lots at $689.35 per assessable lot. <br />comment or discussion was heard on this proposal. (See Resolution Ordering <br />Improvement later in Minutesr) <br />On an easement line between Lots 8 and 9, Block 1, Otto's 3rd Addition from Nine <br />Mile Creek to Creek View Lane. <br />assessed against 14 Lots at $706.70 per assessable lot. <br />discussion was heard on this proposal. <br />lager in Minutesr ) <br />Creek View Lane from Limerick Lane to cul-de-sac. <br />$5,280.26 to be assessed against 14 assessable lots at an estimated cost of <br />$377.16 per lot. <br />Resolution Ordering Improvement later in Minutes. ) <br />CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWER AND APPURTENANCES IN THE FOLLOWING: <br />West 69th Street from west line of Lot 1, Block 2, Southdale Plaza to York Avenue. <br />York Avenue from West 69th Street to 1730 feet north. <br />at $37,125.34 to be assessed against 9 Lots at an estimated cost per connection <br />of $4,125.04. <br />Resolution Ordering Improvement later in Minutes . ) <br />CONSTRUCTION OF WATERMAIN AND APPURTENANCES IN THE FOLLOUNG: West 69th Street <br />from east line of Outlot 2, Sohthdale Plaza to York Avenue. <br />West 69t h Street to West 66th Street and Xerxes Avenue. Estimate of Cost was <br />given at $35,855.12 to be assessed against 9 Lots at an estimated cost per <br />connection of $3,983.90. No comment or discussion was heard on this proposal. <br />(See Resolution Ordering Improvement later in. Minutes,) <br />CONSTRUCTION OF PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER IN THE FOLLOWING: <br />t7oodcrest Drive from Park Place to the south lot line of Lot 4, Block 3, Shady <br />Pines Addition. <br />1,267.9 assessable feet at an estimated cost of $6.06 per assessable foot. <br />Manager Hyde stated that a petition had been received signed by four property <br />owners which favored the improvement and another petition had been received, signed <br />by nine property owners, which opposed the'improvement. <br />5425 Woodcrest Drive, stated that Glen R. Dornfeld had signed both petitions, <br />but that he was withdrawing his name from the petition favoring the curb and gutter. <br />Mr. Roberts also stated that he liked the street as it now exists. <br />to abandon the Improvement was seconded by Rixe and unanimously carried. <br />CONSTRUCTION OF WATERMAIN AND APPURTENANCES IN THE FOLLOWING: Part A - On an <br />easement line along the extension of Walnut Drive from north line of Walnut Ridge <br />First Addition to 155 feet north; thence west parallel to and 140 feet south of <br />the easthest 1/4 line of Sec. 31, T. 117, R. 21 a distance of 843 feet and'there <br />terminating. <br />east/west 1/11 line of Sec. 31, T. 117, R. 21 from a point 990 feet west of the <br />north/south L/4 line of said Section to a point 1325 feet west of said north/south <br />1/4 line; thence northwesterly at a deflection angle to the right 34O 39' 30" a <br />distance of 230 feet; thence at a deflection angle to the left of 90' 00' a distance <br />of 120 feet and there terminating. Estimate of Cost for Part A is $9,743.37 to <br />be asse'ssed against 15 assessable connections at an estimated cost of $649.56 per <br />connection. Estimate of Cost for Part B is $14,392.62 to be assessed against 4 <br />assessable connections at an estimated cost per assessable connection of $3,598.16. <br />Part A includes all of the Sime property running from Nine Mile Creek to the <br />Sime west line. <br />property line of Lot A. <br />stated that they are opposed to water being run through their property at the <br />present time since they have no need for it now and may never need it. <br />that Fabri-Tek should pay the cost of the water now and'that his father would sign <br />a contract guaranteeing to pay Fabri-Tek for his share in the event it is needed. <br />Mr. Sime stated that he felt he was being ttblackmailed't by the Village because he <br />would have to deed 100' along the creek to the Village in order to plat his property. <br />No . <br />Estimate of Cost was given <br />No <br />CONSTRUCTION OF STORM SEWER AND APPURTENANCES IN THE FOLLOWING: <br />Estimate of Cost was given at $9,893.87 to be <br />No comment or <br />(See Resolution Ordering Improvemen't: <br />CONSTRUCTION OF GRAVELING IN THE FO~LONENG: <br />Estimate of Cost was given at . <br />No comment or discussion was heard on this proposal. (See <br />Estimate of Cost was given <br />. <br />No comment or discussion was heard on this proposal. (See I York Avenue fmm <br />Estimate of Cost was given at $7,683.93 to be assessed against <br />Mr. Merrill D. Roberts, <br />Tupa's motion <br />Part B - On an easement line 140 feet south of and parallel to the <br />I <br />Part B includes Fabri-Tek property from their east line to the <br />William Sime, representing his father, Nilliam J. Sime, <br />He felt