My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6487
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6400
>
res_6487
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:10:00 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 11:52:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6487
Resolution Title
Ordering the construction of Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-76-23 under and pursuant to Minnesota statutes, chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
5/9/1977
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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 />MR. CLINTON SMITH, 3006 North Victoria (Spoke before: I <br />was wondering if there's any possibility if the people that own <br />the lot behind them can undivide the lot - making their lot one <br />continuous one from either West Owasso or from Victoria and <br />since they've already paid assessments in one place or another, <br />eliminate the assessment on the lot behind them if they don't <br />want to build there and only want one large lot. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: My first inclination is to say "no" because <br />there have been other instances when we had one existing lot <br />going from one street to another one (inaudible) where we did <br />make the assessment on the other side as long as it's a dividable <br />lot. If a house then straddled, say in the center of that lot, <br />then there would be adjustments made or relief of assessments <br />since that person cofuld not benefit, but my first inclination <br />would be to say "no". <br /> <br />MR. ROBERT BELL: You could go to the county and maybe <br />re-plat it. As long as your property abuts an improvement, <br />you would still be assessed. <br /> <br />MR. SMITH: If the font and rear abut an improvement, you <br />pay on both sides? <br /> <br />MR. BELL: It wouldn't do you any good in this case. I <br />suppose you could devise some set of facts, but on this case <br />you would pay ~he same thing. <br /> <br />MR. SMITH: I would like to thank the Council because I <br />know they worked very hard on trying to get the Open Space <br />through. I attended many of the meetings and I know they were <br />in there pitching all the way. I appreciate it. <br /> <br />mAYOR DEMOS: I think we did more than send resolutions <br />down. I know I went to meetings and not so long ago before <br />this was cut and dried I went to where the park and recreation <br />meets on White Bear Avenue and Mary Hansen attended most of <br />those speaking for the community. <br /> <br />MR. NORMAN ALBRECHT, 3069 West Owasso Boulevard: Mr. Bellis <br />comment about the frontage of the lots gave me a little cause <br />for concern. Can I go over the~e and point? Right there - that <br />thing right there gives me 40 feee of frontage. Our lot is a <br />single lot. It's not platted as two. It's one lot all the way <br />back and this gentlemen and two other people from the Engineer- <br />ing Department that I talked with said I would not be required <br />to pay an assessment unless we were to divide the lot in half. <br /> <br />-39- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.