My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6818
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6800
>
res_6818
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:12:04 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 11:59:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6818
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-SW-79-4 Under and Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
5/21/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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 />6 <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN ANDERSON: Is that going to be on private <br />property? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: The Highway Department in their taking, came <br />very close to the building in what they acquired. The sidewalk <br />would be on the public right-of-way as proposed. <br /> <br />MR. DORSEY: It's still only about three feet away from <br />fue front of the building. <br /> <br />MR. AL FLETCHER, Chairman of the Board of Trustees for centennial <br />united Methodist Church, 1524 West County Road C-2. I apologize <br />that I was late, but it's my understanding the sidewalk does <br />end - the City of Roseville would not be extending the sidewalk <br />down C-2 and, therefore, the Highway Department sidewalk will <br />end, come around the corner and end in the middle of our property. <br />We have concern about this for a couple of reasons. I have an <br />additional question. Did I understand the church, as tax exempt <br />property, would not necessarily be assessed for the sidewalk? <br /> <br />MR. PETERSON: You would be assessed for both storm sewer <br />and sidewalk. <br /> <br />MR. FLETCHER: I guess our main concern is - first of all, a <br />liability associated~th the sidewalk coming down Snelling and <br />bringing people around the corner that would then end in the <br />middle of our yard. Furthermore, the idea that in the middle of <br />winter when there's snow on it, and inasmuch as it's right next <br />to the road, there would certainly be snow plowing and snow <br />piled in there that would be our obligation to keep that clean as <br />well as the liability for the safety and care and maintenance of <br />that sidewalk in the winter. The other factor, of course, is the <br />assessment for the cost of the sidewalk. We feel that there <br />really would not be any particular benefit to - certainly to the <br />members of the church, and perhaps those that are using that <br />frontage sidewalk on Snelling because once they have come to the <br />corner heading north anyway, in another l50 feet they're off <br />the sidewalk and into the street anyhow. The church considered a <br />sidewalk between the church and Coventry housing property to <br />extend the passageway between the properties, but we don't feel <br />there would be a gain to a sidewalk in our property ending at the <br />north. <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: Could you put that slide back on? The green <br />area is the sidewalk area. At the time that the plans were <br />originally being developed, as I mentioned earlier, the walk was <br />contemplated going along C-2 and ultimately all the way to <br />Hamline. With the dropping of the portion just off the slide to <br />the east toward Hamline, the sidewalk was dropped along C-2 - <br />what you would call the C-2 frontage of the church. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.