My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-18-95 Council Special Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
01-18-95 Council Special Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 4:31:00 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:56:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 18, 1995 <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Scalze. <br />Ayes (5) Morelan, Scalze, Fahey, LaValle, Pedersen. <br />Nays (O). Resolution declared adopted. <br />LaValle pointed out that if bid prices necessitate a <br />cost greater than $45 per front foot to the property <br />owners for the street reconstruction, the issue will be <br />revisited. <br />IMP. NO. Fahey opened the public hearing to consider Improvement <br />94-7 - No. 94-7, improvement of Gilanderi Lane by water main <br />GILANDERI as well as street reconstruction, concrete <br />LANE curb and gutter, and storm drainage facilities. Fahey <br />pointed out that in November a neighborhood meeting was <br />held on this issue. At that meeting the majority of <br />the neighborhood favored the water main improvement. A <br />number of property owners opposed street reconstruction <br />and indicated opposition to dedicating the necessary <br />road right-of-way. <br />The City Engineer reviewed three options for <br />consideration. Option 1 includes water main and <br />improving the private road to 28 feet wide with <br />concrete curb and gutter. Option 2 includes water main <br />and replacing the disturbed portion of the private <br />street as is. Option 3 is for water main and upgrading <br />the strength of the disturbed portion of the private <br />street. <br />The Engineer reported that at the neighborhood meeting <br />there was some disagreement about what right-of-way MN <br />DOT owned. The Engineer stated that he contacted MN <br />DOT~s Land Management Office for this information, and <br />the Engineer presented a diagram showing MN DOT's <br />right-of-way. It was also determined that MN DOT has <br />some jurisdiction over the County Road B-2 right-of-way <br />as well. The Engineer pointed out that there are two <br />12 1/2 foot strips and one 14 foot strip of land <br />through this area over which MN DOT has no <br />jurisdiction. The purpose of these strips is not <br />known. <br />Wylie Bennett, 795 Viking Drive asked about the <br />frontage road parallel to Highway 36. <br />The Engineer reported that while MN DOT has <br />jurisdiction over that frontage road, they indicated <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.