04/12/1993 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

116 COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 1993 insuring that when utilities are available, the current landowner will be able to divide the lot and can afford to pay the assessments. Ms. Liz Racutt, 898 Lois Lane asked where the easements came from in 1989. Ms. Wyland explained again. Ms. Racutt explained if they only want one (1) house on the lot, why is there a need for three (3) separate easements. Mr. Schumacher explained the requirements for subdivision as stated in the City Code and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It is very possible that when utilities are available, there will be a different landowner and they will come to the City and ask why there were no provisions for dividing the lot. The City must plan for the future. Ms. Melchoir explained that the property owner was not aware that she could not sell the property as a one (1) lot for one (1) house. She was under the impression that the easements would not be recorded until in the future when utilities were available. She asked if they were future easements, why are they put on the lot at this time. She also noted that a septic system cannot be placed on the lot and stay without encroaching on the easements. Council Member Bergeson said that the recommendation to move one (1) easement to the middle of the lot and remove the second easement was brought by staff to the City Council. If the landowner does not support this recommendation, then the City Council should not act on this matter this evening. Alternate solutions can be suggested at the Council work session. Sharon Beirworth, 678 Case Avenue, St. Paul explained that she would like to buy the lot and build one (1) house in the center of the lot. She asked that the easements be moved to allow her to build as she would like. It was explained that if she builds her house in the middle of the lot and sometime later sells the lot with the house and utilities are extended to the lot, the new lot owner has no choice but to accept an assessment for the entire frontage because the lot can no longer be subdivided. Mr. Schneider explained that the cost of the assessment may be very expensive and exceed the benefit to the lot. It would be difficult for the City to follow the provisions of State Statute 429 in such a circumstance. Therefore, it is important that the City provide for subdivision in the future. The City is trying to avoid future problems. Council Member Bergeson suggested that since new information has been introduced this evening, the City Council should not take action at this time. Council Member Elliott moved to close the public hearing at 8:41 P.M. Council Member Bergeson seconded the PAGE 13 1 1