Laserfiche WebLink
132 <br />Mr. L'Allier felt that the Village Engineer and the County Surveyor would check <br />out these matters before the hard copies were signed anyway. Mr. LaMotte stated III <br />that he had already taken the plat to the County Surveyor for clarification. <br />Mr. Dick Hiniker, Attorney for Mr. LaMotte, came forward to state that the land <br />was originally homesteaded by Mr. LaMotte's grandfather in 1954; that in 1896 <br />Mr. LaMotte's father had deeded some property to the City of St. Paul, this being <br />turned over to the Water Department. On his examination he has found that the <br />plat lines follow the legal description exactly. He felt that the dispute was <br />over a fenceline rather than the property line, and that this was a matter which <br />should be settled in District Court. He requested that the Council give pre- <br />liminary approval to the plat; he would confer with Counsel for the Water Dept. <br />Mr. Cardinal moved that the preliminary plat of LaMotte's Third Addition be <br />accepted after approval by the Village Engineer and the County Surveyor. Seconded <br />by Mr. Jaworski. <br />Mr. Meuwissen of the St. Paul Water Dept. presented a letter written by Mr. Segal <br />asking for postponement of any action on the LaMotte plat. Mr. L'Allier noted <br />that we did research at one time which indicated that it was not necessary to <br />have 2 hearings on a plat, but if a hearing is held on the preliminary plat <br />rather than the final, then the Council can approve the plat subject to approval <br />by the Village Engineer, etc. The hard copies are not signed until the Council <br />gives approval and authorization later. <br />The vote on the motion to approve the preliminary plat of LaMotte's Third Addition <br />was taken and was unanimously in favor of the motion. <br />Mr. LaMotte mentioned needing a road bond and was told that he couldn't start the III <br />road until we received an opinion from the Engineer and the Surveyor. <br />Mr. LaMotte asked if there would be a problem if the road to be built in the <br />First Addition could not be finished by July 1st due to the trucker's strike; <br />could he get an extension of time? Mr. Locher stated that this was okay under <br />such circumstances and no formal authorization would be needed. <br />Mr. Cardinal stated that Mr. Lee Smith had presented a petition for rezoning some <br />87 acres to the Planning & Zoning and asked that hearings on this be set. Mr. <br />Cardinal moved to set hearings for Mr. Smith before the Planning & Zoning Board <br />on June 17th at 8:30 p.m. and before the Council on June 22nd at 8:30 p.m., <br />subject to Mr. Smith's submitting the proper legal descriptions. Seconded by <br />Mr. Rosengren. Carried unanimously. Mr. Cardinal noted that Mr. Smith had also <br />requested a variance from our liquor ordinance to shorten the distance between <br />an off -sale liquor store entrance and a church entrance to 500 feet. This matter <br />will be taken up at the hearings. <br />Mr. Cardinal reported that Mr. Karth and Mr. Husnik had reviewed the new Minnesota <br />Plumbing Code, which includes the use of plastic pipe, and had recommended its <br />adoption, as had the Planning & Zoning as a whole. Mr. Cardinal moved that Lino <br />Lakes adopt the new Minnesota Plumbing Code of June 1969 by reference. <br />It was noted that the new code is more restrictive than our existing ordinances; <br />also, the new code covers both plumbing and septic system work. Mr. Locher <br />didn't recommend the repealing of Ordinances No. 47 and 48 since some items <br />such as stub -ins are not included in the new code. <br />1 <br />