My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-11-1997 CC
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
08-11-1997 CC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:49:30 PM
Creation date
6/29/2018 5:41:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
8/11/1997
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
8/11/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
114
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
Page 5 APPROVED <br /> • July 14, 1997 <br /> Mounds View City Council <br /> COUNCIL BUSINESS; <br /> A. Consideration of Resolution No.5142,Authorizing a Feasibility Study for the Reconstruction of <br /> Spring Lake Road and County Road L <br /> Mr.Ulrich provided a brief history of the project. He explained that the city did receive a petition signed by a <br /> number of people stating that they do not want the road any wider than it currently is and only wish to have it <br /> re-surfaced. He informed them that he could not make that recommendation to the Council. <br /> He noted that the City has received a proposal from SEH for a feasibility study which would answer a number <br /> of questions, put together a mock assessment roll and explain why certain design standards would be <br /> recommend. This would be presented at the next informational meeting with the residents on August 19, 1997. <br /> Mayor McCarty stated his concern is that everyone affected be notified of the proposed improvements. <br /> Council member Trude suggested that an information summary be put together and delivered to the homes. <br /> She feels it is very important to have open communication between the residents and the city staff. <br /> . Barb Haake,3024 County Road I,asked how a road is turned back from Ramsey County;is it requested by the <br /> city? Mr.Ulrich provided an explanation of the process,noting that the turn back roads are rated to determine <br /> the amount of reconstruction funds they must provide the city with in order to bring it up to standards. The <br /> County's other option is to reconstruct the road prior to turning it back to the city. <br /> Ms.Haake stated the residents were told that MSA funds would likely be available to help reduce some of the <br /> costs. Mr.Ulrich explained how the MSA funds work,noting that these funds pay for the actual project,but <br /> that the assessments that come in for the next ten years may then be used to fund other projects in the city to <br /> provide cash flow and also maintenance needs on the streets to lessen the burden for remaining road <br /> construction. <br /> Ms.Haake noted that she,along with some other residents,own six inches of property under the actual road <br /> and there is not right-of-way at all on a portion of County Road I. In regard to drainage,she stated that those <br /> in the Watershed District will be closely watching the drainage of Spring Lake Road,as they would like to see <br /> some areas in which the water could be held and purified before it goes into Spring Lake. <br /> Charles Young,3032 County Road I, stated he owns two lots and when the sewer was put it,the city stopped <br /> the line between the two of them. He has been told that he gets water and sewer from Fridley on Lot 56,so he <br /> wondered why Mounds View would run the water line over the lot that Fridley services. Mr.Ulrich explained <br /> that properties on Pleasant view between County Road I and Bronson are served by the City of Fridley, <br /> including Mr. Young's lot#56. However,his home is served by Lot 55,where sewer service is provided by <br /> Mounds View(he does not have city water). <br /> Mr.Young also explained that he got taxed for half of a 66 foot roadway on County Road I. He has a <br /> blueprint showing this,and he is wondering why the road is going to be widened if this is the case. Mr. <br /> Ulrich admitted that there are some extreme right-of-way problems in the area. The County has a 66 foot right- <br /> of-way,but the road is only 24 feet wide. The road does at least border the resident's property,and possible <br /> infringes on it. Mayor McCarty stated the city would take Mr.Young's concerns into consideration and will <br /> take appropriate action. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.