05-18-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

condition of the plat. Condition #1 should read, “There shall be a driveway easement and maintenance agreement, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney.” Condition #2 should read, “There shall be no building encroachment into the 30 & 20 foot driveway easement.” Schiferl asked if, Condition #7 and #8, should be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Teague said that language could be added to the conditions. Condition #9 should be added, “The 20-foot ingress/egress easement on Parcel B shall be removed and the parties shall enter an access agreement subject to the approval of the City Attorney.” Zisla stated that the persons gaining the access do not have a part in this plat so they cannot be called “the parties.” Zisla suggested, “The 20-foot ingress/egress easement on Parcel B shall be removed and the owner will grant an access easement to the owner of the property to the south, subject to approval of the City Attorney.” Baker reviewed the changes to the conditions in the staff recommendation: 1. There shall be a driveway easement and maintenance agreement, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 2. There shall be no building encroachment into the 30 & 20 foot driveway easement. 7. Grading and drainage associated with the development of Parcel B shall not have any negative impacts on adjacent properties, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 8. The development of Parcel B shall require the submittal of a Utility Plan showing individual lot hook up of sewer and water for Parcel B, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 9. The 20-foot ingress/egress easement on Parcel B shall be removed and the owner will grant an access easement to the owner of the property to the south, subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. Schiferl asked about the utilities easements. Zisla said the utility easements were covered in the plat. Baker asked the applicant if the new and reworded conditions were agreeable to him. Stark responded yes. Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue. Don Leier asked about the applicant’s plans to fence the property. Leier asked if he would need to get a key to the gate every time he wanted to go to his berry patch. Leier stated that he had open access to his property for years. Baker stated that is why the property owners should negotiate an agreement so that both sides know what is expected. Baker asked if anyone else wished to speak during the public hearing. No one responded. PH. Motion by Baker, seconded by Schiferl, 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion TO CLOSE THE UBLIC EARING Carried. PL-251, Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SUBJECT TO THE . 7 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. AMENDED CONDITIONS General Business Zoning Ordinance Amendment City of New Brighton I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\05-18-99.WPD 3