Laserfiche WebLink
3/ 21/66 <br />6% <br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR NEETING OF THE <br />ESINA VILLAGE COUNCIL, HELD I.lONDAY, NARCH 21 9 1966, <br />AT THE EDINA VILLAGE HALL <br />ROLLCALL was answered by Members Johnson, MacMillan, Tupa and VanValkenburg who served <br />as Mayor Pro Tem in absence of Mayor Bredesen, <br />PUBLIC HEARINGS, COWDUCTED ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS <br />A, CONSTRUCTION OF. PERWHENT STREET SURFACING AitTD CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER in Parnell <br />Avenue from \$b 60th St, to Valley View Road* <br />continuation of March 7, 39663 which had been ordered continued in order that a <br />satisfactory formula of assessment could be developed. <br />lots were involved, with the two lots on Valley View Road having expemely long side <br />frontages, These lots are proposed to be assessed for only one-third footage, which <br />accounts for the fact that the proposed cost per foot is SO much higher than most <br />improvements of the same type, &. Vernon Carlson, 6008 Parnell Avenue, stated that <br />relief from the high estimated assessment is being requested by adjoining property <br />owners, <br />and the other for $57+00 at the time Valley Vieti Road was paved, <br />cost was possible because the balance of the cost had been paid by the County, <br />Llr, John Candell, 4721 W,' 60th Street, stated that in view of the fact that public <br />funds are now being expended for general maintenance of the street, perhaps a <br />corresponding amount of money could be delegated to the paving cost in order to bring <br />the amount to be assessed more in line with other similar improvement Costs, <br />stated that it would be possible to save ten per cent by not paving driveway aprons, <br />He stated that there would be an element of risk if the Village was to assume everything <br />over $12.00 per foot, Trustee VanValkenburg then moved authorization of the improvzment <br />with the omission of the paving of the portion between the curb and the property line, <br />with recommendation that at the Assessment Hearing the Village assume cost up to $2,500 <br />in order to hold cost of the assessment to $12.00 per foot, <br />Trustee Johiison and carried, <br />(Nayor Bredesen abstained from voting as he had just arrived,) <br />Bb <br />south of the north line of Lot 2, Block 1, Bing's lst.Addi-tion, north to the north line <br />of Lot 2, Block 1, Bing's 1st Addition; thence west along the north line of Lot 2, <br />Block 1, Bing's 1st Addition a distance of 100 feet west of the east property line; <br />thence northwesterly towards a point in the north line of Lot 1, Block 1, Bing's 1st <br />Addition, said point being 15 feet east of the northwest corner thereof a distance of <br />70 feet and there terminating. <br />bb Hyde stated that this hearing is a <br />Er. Hite stated that eight <br />bIrb Hite stated that one of the Valley View properties was assessed for $46,00 <br />This low assessment <br />Hrb Hite <br />Notion was seconded, by <br />(See Resolution Ordering Improvement later in Minutes.) <br />CONSTRUCTION OF STORM SENER IN THE FOLLOWING: Valley View Road from a point 80 feet <br />Affidavits of Publication in the Edha-Morningside Courier on March 11 and 17, 1966, <br />and of Mailing on March 11, 1966, were presented by the Clerk, approved as to fom <br />and ordered placed on file, <br />proposed to be assessed on 155,086 assessable square footage at a cost of $0,03846 per <br />square foot, <br />1966, at which time it had been determined that the ownem of 4217-19 Valley View Road <br />should try other methods to prevent flooding conditions, <br />Valley View Road, stated that his property had been flooded twice in 1965 and once in <br />1966, <br />go on his neighbor's property and that he would then be liable for a lawsuit. <br />blr, John Keprios, 6325 Brookview Ave,, presented a petition signed by eleven property <br />owners protesting construction of the storm sewer, stating that the area was only a <br />low spot in one backyard and that there is no health or safety hazard involved. He <br />stated that excessive water was present only for a few weeks in the spring and during <br />severe summer storms and that the water level was never higher than the level of the <br />Hughes' basement, <br />Lindahl's Addition, Wr, J, Gutierrez, 6233 Brookview Ave., and Mr, Lester.Hughes, <br />623.7 Brookview Ave., all spoke in opposition to the storm sewer, <br />some of the water from this property is flowing into a sanitary sewer system which <br />situation must be corrected, <br />would alleviate the flooding situation but that it would cause trouble elsewhere. <br />Eurther assured Council that the sewer could be properly maintained' <br />then offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />Mrb Hyde presented total estimated cost at $5$964.62 . <br />Mr* Hyde stated that this proposal had been brought to hearing Novembep I, <br />Mrr Graham Hughes, 4217-19 <br />He stated that if he graded his property as previously proposed, the water would <br />Mr, A;J, Poppelaars, 1628 Louisiana Ave, sob, owner of Lot l$ Block lb <br />Nr, Hite stated that <br />He stated that constmction of a dike around the house <br />He <br />Trustee VanValkenburg