My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6474
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6400
>
res_6474
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:09:58 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 11:52:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6474
Resolution Title
Ordering the construction of Improvement No. SS-W-P-76-22 under and pursuant to Minnesota statutes, chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
4/4/1977
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />home than what you propose t.o assess them. Actually, the $6 a <br />foot sonnds like a real bi.,rgain as far as thc curb and gutter. <br />I need the sewer extensions in order to build homes on the south <br />sideg but I think the curb and gutter and new street will add to <br />the neighborhood, and it's certainly the proper time to do it. <br /> <br />NAYOR DEMOS~ Is there anyone else that wishes to be heard? <br /> <br />r~R. DAVn;: In regard to the se\\1ers and gutters, how many <br />places in Roseville got it now, and why should they just start <br />picking on that little 600 feet when either side, east or west, <br />there's nobody around got gutters and concrete curb. <br /> <br />.r.:lAYOR DEMOS ~ He do have a wider street. <br /> <br />NR. PAVIS: On both sides. r'by should l.,e be assessed for <br />curbing because they're willing on that side of the street to <br />have it done. Before, they fought it all those years and couldn't <br />get it done. <br /> <br />r~YOR nEl'~On: I think tha t' s a sh~'me tha tit \vC3 sn 't done then. <br /> <br />MR. DAVIS~ It should have been done then. <br /> <br />COUNCIUIJAN GFAUEL~ I think one 0:[ the problems we had then <br />was that we didn't hQve the right of way. In other words, we h~d <br />only 30 feet of right-of-\'Jay \','hich the road is built on now. and <br />that's the northerly 30 feet, and it meant for the city to go out <br />and condemn the 30 foot strip of land on the south in order to put <br />the street in. At this time. as you know, the property is dedi- <br />cc!ted now - the southerly 30 feet, so there will be no acquisition or <br />condemnation involved by the city to acquire the additional propertyo <br /> <br />rllB. DAVIS: At that time \'\1hen the sewer vias in, we probably <br />could have bought that property and had the road widened at that <br />time for what it's going to cost us now, but they were not in favor <br />of taking that land for the roadway. <br /> <br />COUNCILllJAN GHAUFL: ~rhere was much discussion a s I reea 11 Q <br />about site clearance at that intersection as people tried to get <br />on Lexington off of this street and the city went in and cut down <br />certain shrubberies 2nd things at that time in order to be able <br />to get the proper site clearances there at that corner and I think <br />probably any improvement that you have today or even throughout the <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.