05-21-96 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Livingston asked if it was correct that Brottlund lives in one building and Del Ray Schaeffer lives in the other building. Therefore, there is one owner-occupied unit and one rental unit in each building. Brottlund responded that is correct. Brottlund said he had spoken to NSP about the utility pole and they said that when the subdivision is approved they would decide where it could be moved. Zisla asked what agreements have been made about the proposed private road. Brottlund responded he has spoken with a couple of attorneys and a covenant has been created which becomes an attachment to the warranty deed. The covenant spells out the maintenance of the driveways and plowing and so forth. The plan doesn’t show on the plan, but concrete curbing and blacktop drives are proposed. Brottlund said he would rather respond to questions rather than make a presentation on the proposal. Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak. Jim Huberty, 2229 Leona Drive, which would face the west part of the so-called proposed development. Hubert said that when the existing duplexes were constructed, the area residents were told that the lot back there was landlocked and would never be developed. If this proposal is accepted, my lot will look at the back of these duplexes 15 or 20 feet from my property line. The Commissioners looked at the site plan to clarify the location of Huberty’s lot. Kitty Huberty, 2229 Leona Drive, said the City assured the residents that the lot would never be developed. Jim Huberty said more duplexes would make his property value go down. Traffic would be increased. These units would be rental units. Brottlund told him the units would be rental units. Huberty said he had asked Brottlund why he would not live there. Brottlund told him Brottlund would not live there because there is too much traffic there and his girlfriend won’t put up with all the noise. Livingston asked Huberty who told him the lot would never be developed. Huberty said a representative from the City of New Brighton told the residents that at the time these duplexes were built. The City denied duplex proposals for the other three corners. Huberty said the residential lots are small lots and the proposed duplexes would be very close to his house. Tony Parotte, the Hubertys neighbor, said he was also told the lot in question was landlocked and could never be developed. The value of his property has gone up $15,000 in the last three years. The value of the house should be greatly reduced because it would be difficult to sell. Brian Turbak, 2253 Leona Drive, said he would have to sell half his lot to Brottlund should this proposal go through. Darrell Swanson said he owned 2725 and 2727 Mississippi Street across the street from the existing duplexes. The road would go between the existing duplexes. A street between these duplexes may cause problems. There is heavy traffic on Mississippi Street already. Swanson asked if the property came under a PRD or PUD. Baker answered no; it is a simple lot split. Mattila stated he wished to talk about some points brought up by the residents on Leona Drive regarding tax dollars. First, Ramsey County is the City’s taxing authority and the City is not involved in property assessing. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1996\05-21-96.WPD