My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-27-1984 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
06-27-1984 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2013 3:12:20 PM
Creation date
6/24/2013 3:10:40 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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
!'l1 ITF.S <br />Planning Commission <br />June 14, 1984 <br />R & S (Cont.) <br />Mr. Thurston commented that there is no easement. Thurston reported <br />that the north portion of the R & S property was acquired on a <br />Warranty Deed dated December 8, 1978. In 1978 when the pole building <br />went up there was no easement nor a reservation of an easement. <br />In the early 1980's Mr. Zilge wanted to divide his property. Mr. and <br />Mrs. Zilge agreed to sell Outlot B and another parcel to the south <br />of the northern most parcel. The deed of sale has a statement <br />indicating an easement for road purposes. <br />Mr. Thurston stated that Mr. Zilge conveyed title to all of Outlot B <br />and then gave an easement to the buyers of the property, therefore, <br />there is no easement. Basically, Zilge granted the buyers an <br />easement for property that they already owned and not for public <br />use. <br />Mr. Thurston stated that he believes to date there is no easement. <br />Mr. Thurston exoressed concern that one of the recommendations of <br />the Planner is that as a condition of the conditional use permit at <br />some future date Mr. Rustad agree to remove the pole building from <br />the easement. <br />Mr. Licht stated that he was concerned that the approval of the sub - <br />division of land to the south was granted contingent upon an <br />easement being granted. <br />Mr. DeLonais recommended that the matter be referred to the City <br />Attorney for his opinion. <br />Mr. French seconded the motion. <br />Motion carried 8 - 0. <br />Mr. Thurston stated that they had no objection to items 2, 3, and 4 <br />of the Planner's report. Thurston commented on the logic of screening <br />to the south from the large cranes owned by McCough Construction. <br />Mr. DeLonais suggested that theroad issue for the area be straightened <br />out. <br />Mr. French asked whose cars are parked to the north of Woodlyn Avenue. <br />Mr. Rustad replied that those are his employees' cars. <br />Mr. Costa asked how R & S got a building permit for their pole. building. <br />Rustad replied that they built the building in 1978 and the road issue <br />did not come up until 1981. <br />Mr. Thurston stated that this all gets to the statement in the contract - <br />for- deed with Mr. Zilge that does not mean anything. <br />Page -2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.