My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1985-01-08
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Minutes - City Council
>
Minutes 1985
>
1985-01-08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2005 5:12:58 AM
Creation date
8/11/2005 12:30:49 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Minutes <br />January 8, 1985 <br /> <br />Benke asked staff, if we were able to proceed with the swap, <br />what the remaining acreage would be for the well house property. <br /> <br />Proper indicated the wellhouse building is about 45x75 feet, <br />but didn't know property size; Winkels stated it was about <br />75x160 feet. <br /> <br />Benke asked for clarification that a variance for a substan- <br />dard lot wide is required; Krueger responded affirmatively. <br /> <br />Hedlund responded to council that a nice home can be put on <br />a 50-foot wide lot, noting that lots on Third Street and <br />Silver Lake Road were platted by him at 50-feet, with 12,000 <br />square feet total; there are houses on 9,000 square foot lots. <br /> <br />Benke stated that current standards require 75-foot lots and <br />that, based on certain circumstances, the council had granted <br />variances and that it appears that council would also have to <br />grant a variance on this site, but this council would be <br />creating the need for the variance. <br /> <br />Hedlund stated that a variance on this property would not be <br />a mistake, because the trend is to go to smaller lots for <br />economical reasons. <br /> <br />Benke restated that his problem is that the city would be <br />creating the need for a variance. <br /> <br />Schmidt stated, not having the floodplain question resolved, <br />if the City had been an owner of that property the City <br />could be liable for that property. <br /> <br />Janecek stated that, in looking at the site, two houses may <br />be better than one and may be willing to grant a variance to <br />do that when the other questions and concerns have been <br />cleared up. <br /> <br />In discussing the lack Of an easement on the property, <br />Hedlund stated that after a discussion with Frank Murray, <br />attorney for the Rice Creek Watershed District, it was felt <br />that this is an opportunity for the city to swap land with <br />no easement. Hedlund further commented that if we go ahead <br />with the transfer, the city will be gaining something even <br />if the land is determined to be unbuildable for him. <br /> <br />Janecek asked Anderson for comments. Anderson stated he <br />could support the swap as long as the city traded land of <br />equal value; didn't feel the two pieces were of comparable <br />value; if the city gets money in return, that would be one <br />thing; the bank and water has no significant value to the <br />park. <br /> <br />Winkels felt there may be Rice Creek Watershed District <br />documents reflecting easement to all county ditches, giving <br />the county the right to run water. <br /> <br />Page Ten <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.