My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-14-81 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1981
>
01-14-81 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/27/2014 2:10:44 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:48:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />January 14, 1981 <br />Councilwoman Scalze commented that she feels when the Citv vacates a <br />street the City shou7d retain ownership of the property for either <br />park or trail purposes and the land should not be split up between <br />the adjacent property owners. <br />Councilman Fahey informed the Council that the law says when a street <br />is vacated it must go to the adjacent property owners. The City could <br />then condemn the property, but would have to pay compensation for it. <br />The Attorney stated that the City could only condemn the property ~f <br />the City had a pub7ic use for it. The City, however, need not vacate <br />any property, and the City is not limited to street purposes for the <br />use of the property. Or,the Attorney stated, the City could vacate a <br />portion of some property and the remaining property could be used for <br />trail purposes. <br />Councilman Fahey stated that he was opposed to variances bein <br />in this area. Fahey stated that the whole area needs to be lookednatd <br />perhaps as a PUD. Fahey suggested that Mr. Demont could purchase additional <br />land to meet ordinance requirements as to lot size. <br />Mr. Demont commented that he has $10,000 worth of assessments against <br />the property. He would like to establish some value for the property <br />so that these assessments can be paid off. <br />Mayor Hanson commented that Mr. John Howard, a property owner in the area, <br />called and stated that he was opposed to the variance being grante~. <br />Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 87-7-2g - CLOSING TFIE PUBLIC HEARING ON <br />THE R----ICHqRp pEMONT LOT VFlRIANCE REQUEST <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Scalze. <br />Flyes (5) Fahey, Scalze, Nanson, Nardini, Forsberg, <br />Nayes (0). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 7, Pages 14 and 15. <br />Mrs. Scalze introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 87-1-30 - REFERRING THE RICHARD DEMONT <br />LOT VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR <br />THEIR RECOMMENDATIOPI <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Hanson. <br />Ayes (51 Scalze, Nanson, Nardini, Forsberg, Fahey. <br />Nayes (0). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in P,esolution Book No. 7, Page 15. <br />Councilman Fahey stated that he would like the Planning Commission to <br />explore the various development possibilities for the other lots in <br />this area, and that possibly Mr. Demont could acquire some other <br />property to meet lot size requirements, <br />Page -2_ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.