My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-28-1993 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
04-28-1993 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2013 1:59:35 PM
Creation date
8/28/2013 1:57:42 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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 />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />APRIL 8, 1993 <br />the rights to the easement to Mr. Wright, then there <br />will be one lot that does not meet the City's minimum <br />front footage requirements. The Planner suggested that <br />the City could get sued for issuing a building permit <br />on land that there is no title for. <br />Keis asked if the City could approve the property <br />division allowing Mr. Wright to sell one lot, with the <br />other lot not recorded until the 30 -foot strip is under <br />Wright's ownership. <br />The Planner indicated that his concern is that the City <br />has created a non - conforming lot. Mr. Wright is asking <br />for the subdivision of property he does not own, but <br />only has an agreement with the County to own. Under <br />these circumstances the County must be agreeable to the <br />property division and enter into the application in <br />order for the City to go forward. <br />Wright pointed out that he will own the property before <br />he will be able to sell it. <br />The Planner suggested that the lot split could be <br />approved, Mr. Hartmann could purchase the lot he wants, <br />and a covenant placed on the second lot declaring it <br />unbuildable until such time as the 30 -foot strip is <br />under Mr. Wright's ownership and combined with the <br />second lot. <br />Garske pointed out that if that never happens, Mr. <br />Wright will be stuck with an unbuildable piece of <br />property. <br />Wright suggested that the City just require that the <br />property division must be recordable. <br />The Planner pointed out that the City must protect <br />itself from someone coming in and wanting to build on a <br />substandard lot. <br />Schletty asked who owns the 30 -foot strip at this time. <br />Mr. Wright replied that he is purchasing the strip from <br />Ramsey County and still has $1,000 to pay the County <br />before the transaction can be completed. <br />Schletty agreed that Wright would not get title to the <br />property until the tax obligation is taken care of. <br />Schletty indicated that he had no problem with <br />proceeding with the property division, as long as a <br />covenant is placed on the substandard lot indicating it <br />is unbuildable until combined with the 30 -foot strip. <br />Wright indicated that he would like to keep his <br />Page 15 <br />Page 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.