My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
02/14/1972 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1972
>
02/14/1972 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/18/2014 12:16:06 PM
Creation date
12/18/2014 12:03:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
02/14/1972
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.
/
12
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
2/14/72 175, <br />need one for the sewer because he is putting it in before the homes are built. <br />Mrs. Swanson asked who checks the sewer system; Mr. Gotwald stated that they <br />do or the sewer maintenance man does, and the MSB does. Mrs. Swanson stated <br />that with Glenn as a private developer she was concerned for the people if <br />something went wrong. Mr. Locher noted he would have lien waivers on the sewer. <br />Glenn stated that the Engineer is bonded if something goes wrong. <br />Mr. Locher read Section 8 of Ord. #22 pertaining to the Village instructing the <br />Engineer to prepare plans for a system which is to go public. He said it is <br />common for a developer to put in his own systems and pay for them, since bond- <br />ing doubles the costs over the bonding time. Mr. Gotwald noted that he works <br />under Village supervision. Crystal commented that it was cheaper to have <br />everybody have the Village Engineer - -this should be for everybody. <br />Glenn noted that his intent in the letter was in error - -he therefore asked to <br />have the Engineer be authorized to do the plans; he will pay for this and will <br />put up the 10% cost of construction. Mr. Gotwald noted that the total engineer- <br />ing costs run from 10 % -15% of the total construction costs; if we estimate <br />using the latest costs, the 10% will pretty much cover it; Glenn should put <br />up the 10% before going ahead with the plans. <br />There was more discussion on whether it should go before the P&Z now. Mr. <br />Jaworski asked who drew up the plans for Chomonix; Mr. Gotwald said Carley did. <br />However, for a trd.ler park the system remains private like the roads. Mr. <br />Marier moved to send Glenn Rehbein's request to the P&Z on Wednesday the 16th. <br />Seconded by Mrs. Swanson. Carried unanimously. <br />Ron Agnes asked questions concerning a parcel of land on Elm St. which he is <br />considering buying. It has a 23' strip on Elm; Mr. Agnes wondered when the <br />sewer comes through if he will have to pay only for the 23' strip or the whole <br />piece. The school owns surrounding land on the North and East. Mrs. Swanson <br />asked if this would be the only house on the piece; Mr. Agnes stated he would <br />be the only builder as there wasn't room for a 60' driveway for a plat, and he <br />wants to get away from other people. Mr. Bohjanen felt this would be a private <br />driveway. Mr. Gotwald felt we could issue a permit since the piece fronts on <br />a street, but he thought he should show the P&Z where the building will go on <br />the property. Mr. Bohjanen asked Mr. Agnes if he would be willing to say on <br />the permit there would be no other houses on the property; he agreed. Mr. <br />Gotwald suggested that the permit state there would be no maintenance by the <br />Village. Mr. Agnes asked again about assessments. Mr. Gotwald stated that he <br />would be assessed according to a formula; that the piece would either be treat- <br />ed as a building lot or perhaps as acreage. Mr. Bohjanen stated that we can <br />issue a building permit if it shows the exact location of the house on the <br />property and it states that there will be no Village maintenance on the drive- <br />way. We only want clarification now; it doesn't have to go to the P&Z. Mrs. <br />Swanson wondered if we couldn't put a more binding clause on the permit. Mr. <br />Agnes stated again that he wants it only for himself. <br />The Clerk reported that the NSP representative had stated that there was already <br />a street light at Linda and Hodgson and wondered if we didn't want one instead <br />at Linda & Laurene. He was holding the work order for the one at Vicky & Lake <br />until we decide on this. It was felt that this had been requested before. It <br />was agreed to put a light at Linda and Laurene instead; no action was needed <br />since the light itself was previously approved. <br />The Clerk reported receipt of the affidavit of publication of Ord. #25B. A <br />letter from the County Assessor set the date of the Board of Review meeting as <br />May 9th at 8 p.m. No one objected to this date. Mr. Locher had sent a copy of <br />the State's sign bill; copies had been made for Council and P&Z members. A <br />letter from the PCA stated that tests had been made of the water from the priva- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.