My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_7622
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
07xxx
>
7600
>
res_7622
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:18:27 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 12:18:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
7622
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Improvement No. P-84-7 Under and Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
7/9/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />center just to the north and east of what is being called <br />American Street. Now this roadway would be of the 9-ton variety, <br />it would have left and right turn facilities. It would have <br />facilities for entrances to the ramp being proposed for a second <br />deck parking facility and it would be necessary to allow the <br />proper access to this proposed shopping center. Although again <br />this is not an assessment hearing, it is a good time to talk <br />about the staff's perspective of how costs would be done. One <br />manner is that per our code, newly developed land is to pay the <br />entire cost of any sewer, water, streets unless its a boundary <br />street and in this case it is a boundary street because you have <br />some existing facilities that are on the southwest corner. <br />We are suggesting that these existing facilities be <br />treated as being a reconstruction project like so many other <br />streets because there is a cost in general to the City to provide <br />some right of way or provide some access to the property that we <br />are taking over and tearing out and putting in new to a higher <br />standard. So there would be a reduced assessment. <br />Again to reinterate some of the City's policies, some of <br />these are corner lots, and as you know the first 150 feet ordered <br />for City improvement projects for streets has only a 10% <br />assessment levy. An example, the first 150 feet here would only <br />have 15 feet of assessments charged to it, using the standard <br />policy. And some of these others, rear parcels, where there is <br />frontage here and there, and that also fits the second frontage <br />approach and would be eligible for reduced rates for assessment. <br />This is not an assessment hearing but people on this type of pro- <br />ject don't ultimately end of paying as much as the new shopping <br />center on the other side. Although ultimately we get our money. <br />It is proposed that this will take place this fall. <br />Indications are that the developer would like to break <br />ground and get a building permit in late August. We probably <br />would not actually build the road until the spring, however. One <br />of the reasons for that is that we would hate to see our nice <br />brand new shiny street get pulverized during construction of that <br />shopping center while they haul the materials in and out espe- <br />cially when the spring thaw comes. So the approach would be to <br />get it approved so that it will be known that a public road will <br />be available for access and potentially go out and get bids to <br />get the best price possible. Then actually put the road in place <br />next spring. <br />It is not an official part of this project any longer, <br />but as you may recall, back at the time of the petition and <br />discussion with this shopping center, there was a proposal for a <br />traffic signal at the location of County Road B-2 and what's <br />termed American Street. We have reviewed the proposed needs of <br />that. We've discussed it with Ramsey County, who has control of <br />County Road B-2 and would be expected to pick up only 50% of the <br />cost because it also suits their needs. At this point the new <br />signal is in the so-called marginal range. It is not obviously <br />needed. In this situation the County has indicated that they <br />would not fund their 50% of the cost, they would rather recommend <br />that what would happen is see how much traffic really comes on <br />the street, put traffic counters on and at that point see if it <br />warrants it in order to get the 50% funding from the County. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.