My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6623
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6600
>
res_6623
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:10:14 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 11:55:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6623
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Improvement No. ST-78-3 Under and Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
3/20/1978
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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 />On the assessments of $295 per lot, it will be spread over <br />twenty years at 8%. <br /> <br />MR. ANDRE: There are no letters. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: I will open the hearing to the public, and <br />ask that each speaker identify him or herself and give their <br />address. <br /> <br />MRS. SUSAN DE KEUSTER, 593 South Owasso: I'm one of the <br />originators of the petition, and if any of you have been down <br />South Owasso you will know why we're here. They may move in any <br />day if we don't get rid of the water. We had written to the <br />Council approximately five years ago, I believe, aSking for, <br />at that time, for the Council to consider putting in storm <br />sewer because the property apparently needs to have the excess <br />water put back into the Lake OWasso area, and at that time we <br />were a total of 3 parties, and because it's a county road, it <br />was decided that we did not constitute a large enough population <br />to spend the kind of money we're talking about. So most of the <br />people that are directly affected and would benefit from this <br />sewer involvement are here, and we would really hope that you <br />do it right al.'lay. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Anyone else that wishes to be heard on the <br />subject? <br /> <br />TRUDY DE KEUSTER: I have the vacant lot. <br />565 South Owasso. I was wondering. We talked <br />sewers and I was under the impression it would <br />to the other but you're talking about my lot. <br />not going all the way down? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: You own Lot 7. The low area, as I under- <br />stand it, is between Lots 6 and 7, with that little pond, and <br />this is where we're proposing to take the sewer to - is to the <br />lowest area to pick the water up. The reason we don't go <br />across to Lot lO is because we would be expending considerably <br />more funds and when you design storm sewers you have to come <br />up with some sort of break point as to where you build the <br />sewers to and where you allow the water to run to that point. <br />We will study going to the other side of Lot 7. At this point, <br />however, it's not our recommendation, but I will be happy to <br />talk to you further. As you recall, I said we would look at <br />it, but most likely stay on the far side (inaudible) if water <br />came along the roadway it would go in very small amounts. At <br />least, this is our expectation to that point where it would be <br />picked up by the storm sewer, but I will be happy to work with <br />you. <br /> <br />I think it's <br />about the storm <br />go from one end <br />How come you're <br /> <br />COUNCILMA~ FRANKE: In effect, it will drain the water <br />off where she is now. The water will drain to that from 10, 9, <br />8 and 7. Does that explain it? <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.