My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1977-03-22
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Minutes - City Council
>
Minutes 1977
>
1977-03-22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2019 10:19:25 AM
Creation date
9/19/2007 3:51:41 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
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
Page 3 <br />The reason for disenchantment with double frontage lots is the <br />assessments they generate. 'The solution to this problem is the <br />equalization of assessments over the.entire tract. The general <br />tax portion remaining would accrue to Lots 4, 5'and 6, Block,2. <br />12. The placement of the intersection of 17A Street and 23rd <br />Avenue resulted from juggling to accommodate 23rd Avenue which <br />cannot be placed any place else without depriving Wedgewood Addition <br />And Hamilton Greens of the buffering effect of proper backlots. <br />By leaving the proposed lot arrangement as it is the wetlands area <br />can be partially preserved and a portion of each lot can accommodate <br />a high value building to generate better tax revenue. While it is <br />true that the two intersections are less than 100 feet, the <br />traffic -flow at 8. trips per day from Brightwood Court would <br />yeild _40 cars per day orabout about three per hour at modest speed. <br />While there are limited reasons for variance on the grounds <br />of hardship, the: argument is even stronger that the city itself <br />will benefit more than it will be harmed by the proposed inter- <br />section placement. <br />13. The.25 foot strip referred to.is not contemplated as <br />being, in the plat by Brightwood Hills, the applicant. The strip' <br />has been largely assessed and paid as to assessments. An adjacent <br />owner should be the proper next owner but that should not happen <br />yet in, the.event` that the village should need that strip for the <br />-same purpose it has been used in the past. To categorize the strip <br />as a probable nuisance is, therefore, premature and inaccurate. <br />Yours truly, <br />Vincent Si, Dahle <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.