pf_00468 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� To: Roseville Village Council Se� 9, 1965 From: P=operty owners along north side of Qxchard Lane Subject: Proposed a�teration of Qrchard Lane, inr�idental to development of Mogren property along south side of Orchard �Lane� The property owners along the north side Qf Orchard Lane ha�ve ap- pointed Richard L. Tedrow as their spakesnaan at the Sept. 9, 1968 meeting of the Roseville Uillage Council. The following remarks represent the reactions of the above prop- erty owners to the recommendation of the Planning Commission relative to the �ropo�ed development of the �+iogren property, located along the south side of Orchard I,ane. We understand this proposal to be as fol2ows: That the ea�ement be widened to 50 ft., from. the present 30 ft.;that the 20-ft. ad�3tion be �taken g�om the property along the south side of the street; that the street be wYdened (possibly relocated to the cen�er c�f the easement); and that the cost of such alteration(s) be assessed against adjoining p�operty, with 75g6 of the cost to be borne by the �roperty along the south side of the stre�t, and 25/ of the cost to b�e borne by the property along the north side of the street. The pre�ent stzeet was constructed as a prerequisite to the dev�l- apment of the property along the north sicle of the streetwith the entire cost borne by the developer. It is the consensus of �he present owners of this pxoperty that so long as there a�e houses only along the north side of the street, the �r�sent s�reet is adequate. It is our further consensus that as a nece�sary require- ment to the development of the property along the south side of the street, it should be widened--and we agre� tY�at a 50-ft. easemer�t is probably adequate. It is our position that since we �ee no par- ticu3.ar benefit to our property resulting from this widening, the full cost should be borne by the ;developer of tY�e p�roperty along the south side of the street. Qther developers in the village are required to dedicate land for streets, a:nd to bear the cost of initial street cc�nstruction--and we see no reason for making an exception in this case. � . ,�� ``2�� 1�.� y �'� � � ;�� ' � '�' � 7 � ._._� �.: � � � ��-� - Z � �, � , , � � U � �,-`'ytit �t---�-i-� ^ �% r �/1,��,.-�"- � �� . r ��.i'. - �:��-�� ,�`�� , �,�� l�.:L-� -u w l / � � = , �. %�1Z� � f' � l � ``" yC- `-. ,� �? �- S C` f'c::'Nz��D G�1-lLP� � � �.� . �Q. ,Y ^ ��. � y � �� �r,�. �- ��15�3 � !� �v, v, `�-�•'�