My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_1966_1003
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
196x
>
1966
>
CC_Minutes_1966_1003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 8:51:30 AM
Creation date
2/1/2005 10:58:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/3/1966
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />GORDON L. ROHRBACHER, 1139 Brooks: Proposed to the Council that <br />there be an over all assessment for everyone in the village to pay <br />for the sewers. Also said that he has always had natural drainage, <br />and his immediate neighbors are out of the storm sewer area and <br />are not being assessed. <br /> <br />ALBERT BURGER, 1994 N. Lexington: He's always taken care of his <br />own drainage problems and feels he's not benefitted by the <br />storm sewer. He's also being assessed $400 for two homesites, <br />but said his home is in the middle of the property and it <br />couldn't be divided. <br /> <br />GUNNAR SWANSON, ll8l W. Sandhurst: Appeared in behalf of a Mr. <br />Bowes who was ill, and who owns vacant lots on the south side <br />of the street. Mr. Bowes has been assessed $400 but his lots <br />are so low he's never been able to get a building permit from <br />the Council. <br /> <br />MRS. EDWARD GOTTBEHUT, 1142 W. Sandhurst: (Leoal description <br />of lot is Auditor's Subdivision No. 46. East ~ of North 174 <br />54/100 feet of South 516 54/100 feet of Section 14). The lot <br />.would be on the corner of Sandhurst and Milton if Sandhurst ran <br />~ll the way through. They asked for a building permit and were <br />told they couldn't have one because they didn't have access to <br />the sanitary sewer. If the lot isn't buildable, she wondered <br />why they were being assessed. <br /> <br />RALPH HINTZE, 802 Lovell: Has worse drainage now than before <br />the storm sewer was put in, with water standing in front and <br />in back of his house. He also has a ridge at the end of his <br />driveway which will collect water, and an unsightly curb. <br /> <br />MRS. ARTHUR OLIVER, 256l Dunlap: On the basis of the way plans <br />were originally drawn which showed drainage into a pond across <br />Oakcrest, Mrs. Oliver and her neighbors signed easements for <br />the sewer line to go through the back of their property. The <br />plans were changed and they now believe the pond will dry up. <br />They feel that had they known this, they would' not have signed <br />the easements. <br /> <br />JOSEPH COCOUR, 1176 Oakcrest: Because of the grade of the street <br />to the catch basin on Dunlap and Oakcrest he and his neighbor <br />across the street now have water problems which they didn't <br />have before the storm sewer was put in. There's also an un- <br />sightly curb there which stands about a foot above the grass. <br /> <br />AMBROSE ZPREMSINSKI, 1844 N. Hamline: He has two and a half <br />acres of land runnina from Hamline past Huron and doesn't get <br />any benefit from the-storm sewer. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.