My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-27-2013 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
03-27-2013 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/11/2013 1:19:03 PM
Creation date
4/11/2013 1:18:32 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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 />MARCH 27, 2013 <br />that could be considered, such as the Brausen bulb plan, the Brausen <br />easement plat, etc. Brausen also felt that the ghost plat leaves 11 property <br />owners landlocked indefinitely. Brausen felt the City needed to make an <br />effort to not landlock any property, and felt all options deserve a closer <br />look, including the potential to purchase the Brausen property. Brausen <br />indicated Howe reported that he had $1.7 million into this project, and <br />Brausen suggested that the neighbors may be willing to put together a <br />proposal to take over the project. <br />Steve Brausen stated that at the last meeting the decision was that the City <br />would not landlock any properties. He again stated that Gordie Howe <br />cannot request a vacation. Brausen stated that a developer should now <br />that if a property is purchased with an easement on it, it does not mean you <br />get to use the easement for anything you want. Brausen stated that the 33- <br />foot road easement was given to the City for future access into the area. <br />Brausen stated that if vacation of the easement takes away buildable lots, <br />he did not see that the vacation would be a public benefit. Brausen felt <br />that there was a solution to all the concerns expressed this evening, and <br />that solution was to develop the area with the Brausen bulb plan. <br />McGraw pointed out that the Brausen bulb plan results in landlocking the <br />development of the back portion of the LaBore Road properties, <br />specifically the Bilek, Laurie Brausen, and Christianson properties. Steve <br />Brausen stated that his comments were specific to the 33 -foot easement. <br />He also said that he was sympathetic to Howe wanting to begin <br />construction and felt that was still possible. <br />Laurie Brausen stated that if she had to choose, she would support the <br />Brausen bulb plan and forego the ability to develop the back portion of her <br />LaBore Road property. <br />The Administrator indicated that the Pinetree Pond plat would not <br />landlock properties pointing out that the ghost plat shows one option to <br />develop the Acosta /Boog /Brausen properties. 1-Ie noted that the Brausen <br />H plan brings some of the LaBore Road properties into the equation and <br />there is currently no road access to develop these properties. The <br />Administrator also pointed out that the easement vacation option <br />recommended by City staff provides another development option for the <br />Acosta /Boog /Brausen properties. Steve Brausen was concerned that if the <br />easement was vacated, that Howe would not follow through on dedicating <br />the 25 feet back to the City as recommended by City staff. Steve Brausen <br />suggested that in addition to retaining the existing 33 -foot easement, <br />Howe should be asked to dedicate another 17 feet to provide for a 50 -foot <br />road easement. <br />20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.