My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-10-2013 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
04-10-2013 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2013 7:53:56 AM
Creation date
4/23/2013 7:53:32 AM
Metadata
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 />APRIL 10, 2013 <br />The Administrator pointed out that if the easement is not vacated and the <br />developer modifies his plat leaving the road easement in place, nothing <br />changes. It will still take the cooperation of other property owners in the <br />area to bring in road access to the Brausen property. The Administrator <br />pointed out that property owners adjacent to the road easement have not <br />been willing to dedicate the additional 17 feet needed to have the <br />necessary 50 -foot road easement. The Administrator acknowledged that <br />the Brausen's have presented alternate development options which <br />accomplish their goals, but noted the issues of Acosta and Boog not <br />wanting to develop at this time and the resulting improvement costs to <br />those property owners. <br />Steve Brausen noted that retaining the easement only impacts the Pinetree <br />Pond development by one Less lot. Brausen felt that with the easement <br />intact it leaves the potential for development of the northeast property. <br />Without the easement, that development is not likely to occur. The City <br />Administrator stated that the ghost plat option makes development of the <br />northeast property just as likely to occur as under the scenario where the <br />easement stays in place. However, if a road is improved on the 33 -foot <br />easement, some of the lots in Pinetree Pond become double- fronting and <br />thus non- conforming. <br />There was discussion on easements and the purposes for which they are <br />dedicated. The City Attorney provided a brief history on this topic, noting <br />that easements are dedicated with a specific purpose and their use is <br />limited to that purpose. <br />Blesener asked about the City's right to vacate the easement. The City <br />Attorney noted that case law allows cities to vacate easements if they find <br />it is in the public interests of the community to do so. <br />Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 2013 -4 -56 — VACATING THE FOLLOWING <br />DESCRIBED STREET EASEMENT SUBJECT TO THE FINAL <br />PLAT APPROVAL OF PINETREE PONDS AND A DEVELOPMENT <br />AGREEMENT WITH MASTERPIECE HOMES, INC. GOVERNING <br />SAME AND BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: <br />The East thirty -three (E 33) feet of that part of the West one-half <br />(W %) of the Southwest Quarter (SW %) of the Northwest <br />Quarter (NW''') of Section 4, Town 29, Range 22 lying <br />Northerly of Labore Road, according to the plat thereof on file <br />and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for <br />Ramsey County. <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.