My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
01/28/1991 Council Minutes (2)
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1991
>
01/28/1991 Council Minutes (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/24/2014 11:07:52 AM
Creation date
11/21/2014 1:46:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
01/28/1991
Council Meeting Type
Regular
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
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />COUNCIL MEETING <br />JANUARY 28, 1991 <br />sheet indicating that the like taxes to be generated in the <br />subdivision would be equivalent to the taxes generated by sixty <br />(60) average homes in this City. <br />Mr. Boxrud noted that there are five (5) items to be resolved. <br />They are: 1) The variance requested for the cul -de -sac which <br />would create a 2,700 foot dead end; 2) The environmental concerns <br />previously raised during the Environmental Work Sheet process. <br />(From an engineering standpoint, it would appear that these <br />concerns have been addressed); 3) Suitable access to the plat <br />through the Marlin Hansen property; 4) The desirability of the <br />City owning and maintaining a culvert versus a bridge; 5) Whether <br />future taxes to be paid will cover the cost of maintenance of the <br />roadway and culvert. <br />Mayor Bisel outlined the procedure for this public hearing. He <br />opened the public hearing at 7:32 P.M. <br />Frank Kern, 2019 Otter Lake Drive, president of the Otter Lake <br />Property Owners Assn. summarized the concerns of the local <br />residents. First Mr. Kern asked who requested the variance for <br />the cul -de -sac. Mr. Miller explained that the DRB discovered <br />that the variance was needed and the developer prepared the <br />required application and paid the fee. Mr. Kern asked if there <br />has been six (6) findings of fact for approval of the variance? <br />Mr. Kern read the six findings of fact that are required to grant <br />a variance and commented on each of these proposed findings of <br />fact. Mr. Kern felt that the plight of the landowner was created <br />by the developer. <br />Mr. Kern expressed concern regarding proper soil and percolation <br />tests. He explained where the tests had been taken and noted <br />that the tests were taken during a drought period and some were <br />taken in areas that will be vastly altered by grading. It was <br />explained to Mr. Kern, that additional tests will be required at <br />each house location. Mr. Kern suggested that maybe after the <br />knolls are graded, the area will not pass a percolation test. He <br />suggested that a firm such as Twin City Testing be hired to test <br />the soil at future set back grade. Mr. Kern noted that septic <br />systems have to be located three (3) feet above the water table <br />and cannot be located in peat soils. He asked that tests be <br />conducted before the area is destroyed by a bulldozer and before <br />the area is devastated. <br />Mr. Kern noted a problem with the protective covenants in his <br />subdivision. He noted that some areas of the covenants are being <br />violated and asked why the Property Owners Assn. must have the <br />burden of proof placed on them. He explained that he was told <br />that the Home Owners Assn. must prove that the covenants are <br />legal documents. Mr. Kern noted that the DNR has issued permits <br />PAGE 4 <br />220 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.