My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_1967_1211
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
196x
>
1967
>
CC_Minutes_1967_1211
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 8:52:02 AM
Creation date
2/1/2005 11:13:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
12/11/1967
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 />~2- <br /> <br />CHURCH OF ST. ROSE OF LHiA, 1284 Eldridge: They were assessed for <br />two parcels of one and a half lots each for a total of $600 for each <br />parcel. Asked if an adjustment could be made. <br /> <br />CHARLES W. STRAND, 2383 Western Avenue: Because of a clerical error <br />he was assessed $400 for one lot. The assessment should have been $200. <br /> <br />LEO J. HOUCK, 1133 Roselawn: Was assessed $630 on R-3 zoned acreage. <br />He understood his assessment would be $200 and he sees no reason why <br />it should be higher. <br /> <br />ALBERT BURGER, 1994 N. Lexington: Was assessed for 1 lot at $200. <br />Feels there is no benefit from the improvement and wants the assess.. <br />ment eliminated. <br /> <br />ALBERT SCHREIBER, 1896 Fernwood: Thought he was over-assessed because <br />he had deeded a 16.5 foot strip of his property for highway purposes. <br /> <br />JOHN H. MCGUIGAN of McGuigan and tvfcGuigan, attorneys, Liberty Bank <br />Building, St. Paul, writing for Lindon E. Oliver, Route 1, Box 571, <br />Forest Lake, Minnesota, owner of property in Roseville: Was assessed <br />$1,040 for undevelopable residential property and $643 for developable <br />property. Thought he should be assessed for 6 residential lots at $200 <br />each. Contends that part that was assessed as low and wet was not this <br />way until after the storm sewer went in and the water was diverted from <br />the street. <br /> <br />RICHARD H. KNUTSON, Attorney, 950 Shryer Avenue, writing for <br />ARNOLD H. PETERSON, 1973 Lexington: Was assessed for 3 lots at $200 <br />each. Asked to have the assessment reduced because he could not and <br />would not split his property. <br /> <br />JAMES SETZER, 2333 Western: Was assessed for two lots at $200 each. <br />Asked to have the assessment reduced because he owns only one build- <br />able lot. <br /> <br />AMBROSE ZAREMBINSKI, 1844 N. Hamline: Was assessed for one acre <br />of undevelopable residential area at $1,286 and 1.4 acres of <br />residential area at $900. Thought the property should be assessed <br />not to exceed $1,500. <br /> <br />EDWARD J. PETSCHEL, 2465 N. Dale: Was assessed for one lot at $200. <br />Asked that the assessment be eliminated because his lot does not drain <br />into the storm sewer. <br /> <br />YOAVA KLASCAR, 2599 N. Lexington: Was assessed for 6.8 acres of commercial <br />area at $8,780 and 1 acre residential area at $643. Feels his property <br />was over-assessed Mlen compared to his neighbors. <br /> <br />IVAN NELSON, 2255 N. Victoria: '\fas assessed for one lot at $200 and <br />1.15 acres residential area at $740. Feels the assessment is too <br />high. <br /> <br />The following appeared in person: <br /> <br />YOAVA KLASCAR, 2599 N. Lexington: Repeated his objection as stated <br />in his letter above. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.