My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
04/12/89
Ramsey
>
Economic Development Authority
>
Full Agendas
>
1980's (Disc 11)
>
1989 (Disc 11 & 19?)
>
04/12/89
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2007 3:20:59 PM
Creation date
11/20/2003 9:46:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Full Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
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).
View images
View plain text
Hematite do not want the improvements and when they do, the project cost will be reduced <br />by not having that 300 feet to pave. <br /> <br />Mr. Otto replied that two comer lots on 156th and Hematite, access onto I56th and are <br />included in the project; typically, a project includes ali of the property boundaries and these <br />two comer lots have boundaries on Hematite. The project is not costing any more but there <br />are less units to share the cost with Hematite being deleted from the project. <br /> <br />John Zobava - Stated that he believes that now there are 50% of the residents on Hematite <br />that want the street paved; the City should just make a decision and pave Hematite. If there <br />are 50% of the residents on Hematite in favor of the project, can the project be expanded? <br /> <br />Mayor Reimann replied that according to the City Charter, the City cannot impose <br />improvements unless the residents petition for them. <br /> <br />Mr. Hanley stated that State law provides that projects can be modified by 15%. Ramsey <br />must follow it's City Charter which states that a public hearing would be required to <br />modify a project. <br /> <br />Lawrence Shaw - 6841 156th Avenue - Stated that the gas company covered his driveway <br />culvert during a project and inquired if the street project would include reopening his <br />culvert. <br /> <br />Mr. Otto replied that if Mr. Shaw's culvert is in an area where the ditches are not <br />functioning, a suburban street section will be used; in areas where ditches are functioning, <br />a rural street section will be used. <br /> <br />Lawrence Shaw - Inquired ff the street assessments can be paid without placing them on the <br />property taxes. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley replied that the assessment hearing and adoption of the assessment rolls wilt be <br />in September, following that, the residents have 30 days to pay the assessment in full with <br />no interest; if not, the assessments will be placed on the property taxes. <br /> <br />Scott Hagen - 704I 156th Avenue N.W. - Stated that his driveway is on the crest of the <br />hill; when he exits his driveway onto 156th, he is not visible to oncoming traffic. <br /> <br />Mr. Otto replied that it is not proposed to reshape the hill. <br /> <br />Leonard Lewis - 6960 156th Avenue N.W. - Stated that he owns 6 acres and inquired as to <br />how the number of units to be assessed per property owner is determined. <br /> <br />Mr. Otto replied that the number of units to be assessed to each property owner is <br />determined by the number of potential buildable lots there are based on acreage and street <br />frontage requirements. <br /> <br />Mayor Reimann noted that the City assesses based on the number of potential buildable lots <br />so that in the future if property is subdivided, the newly created lots have paid their fair <br />share towards street improvements. <br /> <br />Leonard Lewis - Stated that he does not object to being assessed on that basis but he does <br /> <br />City Council Public Hearing/March 28, 1989 <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.