My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6930
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6900
>
res_6930
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:12:45 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 12:02:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6930
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Improvement No. SS-W-P-79-20 Under and Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
3/10/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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 />4 <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: One of the major objections is - to get a <br />building permit you would have to dedicate property where your <br />house is and we'd have to have the 30 feet, and at this instant <br />you don't have any frontage on any improved roadway because it <br />happens the way the county bought the land, as best we can de- <br />termine, none of your property abuts an improved roadway. <br /> <br />MR. WIDERSKI: Now that you have to move the cul-de-sac - <br />with the engineer that put in that street where I paid almost <br />$12,000 - you got a rebate of over $8,000. Where he put that <br />in where the line was, he said "I'm over your line nearly a <br />foot". (inaudible) <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: When we went north the more houses to be <br />assessed who said they didn't feel they wanted the assessment <br />to provide the access to the south, am I right? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: I wasn't here at the time. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: There was a bit of a discussion, let's <br />say between some owners in - I'm not sure which lots that they <br />didn't feel they should lose if we kept it up to the north. <br />They were actually taking a good bit of someone's front yard. <br /> <br />MR. WIDERSKI: What I'm referring to - if you take that <br />pencil - if you see the line where the cul-de-sac comes, <br />actually I'm supposed to be inside that cul-de-sac. Why they <br />changed that, that I shouldn't be able to build, I don't <br />know, but at the time the road came through - and I've been <br />there since 1928 - and when they came through with that, they <br />told me it was all bog, and I said that's there, but this is all <br />sand and it kept caving in on them because he was over on my <br />property. Now, according to that, that movement was on my property <br />over a foot, but it doesn't show it now today, but at that time it <br />did. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: How far does the existing roadway go back? <br /> <br />MR. WIDERSKI: Where my line comes. I would be in part <br />of the cul-de-sac there, and there I got all the water lines <br />there. We wouldn't touch anyone else's property, and connect <br />at the first opening I put in which I paid for. I paid nearly <br />'$12,OOO and made no use of it whatsoever. Now they're trying <br />to run more money on me here and I don't think anyone could afford <br />it because without putting a shovel in the ground I'd have about <br />$75,000 plus all the property I'd have to give up and that's <br />going to push me probably $IO,OOO more to fill in. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: When you say you (inaudible) in the cul-de-sac, <br />are you talking about the current house and the cul-de-sac on <br />the left? <br /> <br />MR. WIDERSKI: I should be into that cul-de-sac according to <br />when that road was put in and according to your engineer on the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.