My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_1976_0510
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
197x
>
1976
>
CC_Minutes_1976_0510
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 8:56:32 AM
Creation date
2/1/2005 2:36:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/10/1976
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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 />MR. HONCHELL: In the first place, this isn't an <br />assessment hearing, but we can tell you how we have act- <br />ed in the past to give you a feel. Our typical assess- <br />ment is corner lots be assessed 2~~ of the roadway cost <br />for the depth up to 150 feet. Everything beyond that <br />would be full cost. Obviously there would be no <br />assessment for sanitary sewer, water or storm sewer <br />because they're already in and you would not be receiving <br />benefit on those - but the roadway itself, our assess- <br />ment is 2~~ of the first 150 feet and full cost for that <br />beyond 150 feet in depth. <br /> <br />MRS. JOAN ERICKSON, 1214 Oakcrest: Your Honor and <br />Councilmen, there are only three of us present - property <br />owners affected by any assessments on this street. Our <br />feelings are that this road is not benefitting anyone <br />but Mr. Michels and the very expensive proposed homes. <br />If they can afford to build such expensive homes why <br />must we be assessed any cost on this road when we would <br />have to go out of our way to use this street as our <br />garages face Oakcrest (inaudible) the Rose's on Brooks. <br />No one would use that but the new people who moved into <br />those homes and, of course, the motorcycles, so I feel <br />as long as this road is exclusively for the convenience <br />of Mr. Michelts plan that we are being forced to pay <br />for something that we will never use. Itts just <br />increasing the traffic hazard for our children - in- <br />creased noise - and, of course, air pollution. Thank <br />you very much. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Anyone else? <br /> <br />MR. VIC MICHELS: I am the original applicant for the <br />improvement and we're very much in favor of your decision <br />on the improvement and I will have answers tomorrow <br />morning with our pipeline company on the easement settle- <br />ment. <br /> <br />MR. JERRY ERICKSON, 1214 Oakcrest: I didn't want <br />to leave Mr. Michels with the idea that we're opposed <br />to the development as such. It's alittle difficult <br />for us to understand - even if we put ourselves in <br />someone else's position - and try to look at it <br />objectively - it's difficult for us to understand how <br />we should pay for a street improvement. Right now <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.