Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING <br />APRIL 14, 1982 <br />PAGE 2 <br />~~ <br />with Clinton Hewitt of the University of Minnesota regarding the possible CLEVELAND <br />purchase of land for a Cleveland access. Mr. Hewitt informed'that a ACCESS <br />matter of this kind would not go to the Board of Regents, but it has been UPDATE <br />referred to the Plot Committee for review. Mayor Warkentien felt much <br />encouraged and hoped to have something final in a week or two. <br />Councilmember Chestovich was concerned that with the Cleveland access COUNCIT,MEM~E <br />the City would 1oo'se some park area, and since Ordinance ~~69 does allow CHESTOVICH <br />the City to ask fo,~ park land dedication, she felt that the City might <br />want to consider a'ksing for park dedication. <br />Councilmember Chestovich also inquired as to how the approval of the CHESTOVICH/ <br />platting might affect the law suit. Attorney Swanson replied he did SWANSON <br />not feel it would affect the law suit due to the fact that the Bernwood <br />Addition 4~1 conforms to the PUD on which they were seeking approval. <br />Councilmember Chestovich commented on the fact that the Zoning Ordinance <br />requires lots in an R-1 district to be 75' wide and 90' wide for corner <br />lots and she had noted that the five lots on the west side of the plat <br />are 75' wide on the south and 70' on the north. She inquired as to <br />whether or not that conformed to the R-1 Zoning. Attorney Swanson <br />replied that the 75' requirement does apply to the width of the whole <br />lot but when streets are curved it is difficult to accomodate that 75' <br />width uniformly. Council,~-ember Chestovich stated that it could be <br />,accomplished if ther~~~~ of lots were decreased and' the Attorney agreed. <br />Attorney Swanson explained that if Council approves this addition they <br />would waive that 75' requirement. The plat as presented would also <br />require a variance on the cul-de-sac for the lots on the east side be- <br />cause those lots do not have the required frontage, but, obviously, <br />you cannot require that kind of frontage on a cul-de-sac. He then <br />explained that if Council is approving this plat it would also be <br />approving those variances at the same time.. Councilmember Chestovich <br />wanted to know if this applied even though the developer has not re- <br />quested a variance and Attorney Swanson replied that, in effect, they <br />are requesting it with this platting. <br />Councilmember Larson stated that under 14.6 of Ordinance 64 permits the COUNCILMEMBF~ <br />developer to do what has been done. If the plat is approved it will be CARSON <br />inconformance except for individual lot area, lot width, and yard re- <br />quirements which may be adjusted to fit the development. <br />Councilmember Ciernia inquired of Harold Westin as to how reversible COUNCILMEMBER <br />the street would be if the Cleveland access becomes viable and what CIERNIA/ <br />would be involved in reversing the street to make it in conformance HAROLD WESTIN <br />with the original plan presented with the PUD. Mr. Westin stated <br />that he felt the plans for the remainder of the property would be in <br />before the street is constructed, and, hopefully, the decision on the <br />Cleveland access will be made. They would then build as originally <br />proposed, a hard surface covered with grass, to be used for emergency <br />vehicles only. <br />Councilmember Chestovich asked if American Shelter would be responsible CHESTOVICH/ <br />for the reversing and Mr. Westin assured they would. WESTIN <br />