My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
04/14/1982 P&Z Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Minutes
>
1982
>
04/14/1982 P&Z Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2022 3:19:30 PM
Creation date
7/21/2014 12:03:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Minutes
Meeting Date
04/14/1982
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
Planning and Zoning <br />April_14,- 1982 <br />Page Two <br />Mr. Peterson noted that the utilities were put in a couple of years ago <br />according to a filed plat. The Corps of Engineers became involved as well <br />as the DNR and the RCWB. These agencies placed very restrictive conditions <br />on these lots for construction. The lots then went forfeit and were to be <br />offered for sale to the City first and then at a Sherrif's auction but, <br />instead, they went to the State of Minnesota and have never been offered <br />for sale. <br />Mr. Peterson felt the City could force a Sherrif's sale on these lots. He <br />suggested that with the amount of assessments against the lots together with <br />the added expense of filling, it would make R1 construction prohibitive. <br />At a meeting last year, Mr. Peterson felt that DNR and RCWB were in a give <br />& take position by the Corps of Engineer was not. <br />Mr. McLean asked Mr. Peterson what he thought it would take to break this <br />loose? Mr. Peterson said he wasn't knowledgable with the legal requirements <br />but felt a Sherrif's ale could be forced since the City was never offered <br />the option of purchasing the lots. He also felt that if someone came in <br />with a feasible plan for development of these lots, that something could <br />be worked out. <br />Mr. McLeam moved to recommend to the City Council that the City Administrator <br />determine the City's legal position in reference to the property and to <br />either obtaining ownership from the State or force a Sherrif's sale. <br />Seconded by Mr. Doocy. Motion carried unanimously. <br />Mr. Peterson offered to assist the Board in anyway that he can and he <br />pointed out that he has no interest in that land. <br />VARIANCE - GLENN REHBEIN <br />This variance is for the construction of home of less than the required <br />square footage in Shenandoah II. Mr. Karth presented his report and the <br />reasons for the request. <br />Mr. McLean pointed out that this had been allowed in Shenandoah III on an <br />experimental basis. 15% of the lots were designated to have smaller than <br />required homes. At the completion of this experiment, a report was to be <br />made back to the Council as to the impact of these smaller homes on the <br />Community and, in his mind. this request is premature since that study has <br />not been done. <br />Mr. Karth pointed out that there are figures available in the material he <br />had provided. Mr. McLean said this report does not constitute a study. He <br />wanted to know what the sizes were - who is purchasing the homes - how many <br />constructed garages - have they been added to, etc. <br />Mr. Karth pointed out the part of the report that sets forth this information. <br />Also, this report included the average income of the Metro agrea, cost of <br />a homw and mothly payments. <br />Mr. Karth pointed out that the homes they are proposing are 136 square feet <br />less than the required minimum - noting that the cost of this house dictates <br />that there must be an income of at least the average income. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.