Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - 2/l/83 <br />Page seven <br />E. Other - Fraser wanted <br />recruiting people. Kuettner - <br />has been covered in newspapers; <br />the bushes as often as we can." <br />performing a job, anyone under <br />to know if City should do more about <br />What we need is young men. Recruitment <br />cadet program is in force, and we "beat <br />We would take anyone who is capable of <br />35 years of age. <br />17. ORCHARD/SINCLAIR, SIMPLE LOT DIVISION REAPPEAL - Elizabeth Orchard <br />said additional information has been submitted. Sinclair noted small <br />change on map which Bohrer has looked at regarding secondary drainfield <br />which will not have to be excavated; but .provisions have to be made for <br />it should it ever be needed. <br />• Eder - this is appeal of earlier decision, and question tonight is <br />there is only parcel of. .84 acre in one lot instead of 1 acre; code <br />allows grandfathering in 1 acre lots in existing subdivisions. I don't <br />feel there's that much difference in 1 acre as opposed to .84 acre. <br />o Fraser - feels .84 is not close enough to 1 acre; and, at present, <br />extra land enhances existing house. <br />® Mazzara - given all the facts, I would have a hard time voting <br />against it. On my own, I've been advised by legal counsel that if we <br />allow this, it would be more an exception to the rule and would not set <br />a precedent. <br />e Dunn - When lot was purchased, it was buildable lot for two homes <br />according to code at that time and is non -homesteaded, so intention <br />clearly was and is to build two homes from the beginning. <br />M/S/P Dunn/MOraan -to adopt R-83-23 approving the 'bfchard/Sinclair`*Simple <br />Lot Division based on:. lot exceeds average of other lots in area; <br />( higher land than many other lots in area; not a precedent for other 2- <br />acre parcels with other characteristics, neighborhoods or circum- <br />stances; and there has been no negative response from neighbors. <br />(4 ayes; Fraser nay) - <br />18. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT, Cont'd... <br />E. Ordinance 7940, Codifying changes in Section 200 of the Code - <br />will come back with this when ready. <br />F. Fee Ordinance - M/S/P Fraser/Morgan to adopt R83-22: <br />A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH THE FOLLOWING FEES: $10 FOR AGENDA <br />COPIES; AND THE FOLLOWING FOR COPIES OF MINUTES: $25 CITY COUNCIL, <br />$20. PLANNING COMMISSION, AND $10 FOR PARKS COMMISSION. ALSO, <br />$20 FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND $15 FOR ASSESSMENT SEARCHES. <br />(5 ayes) <br />G. Rezoning Fee for Ag Preserve - Consensus of Councillors was <br />that ag preserve should be encouraged, so $100 fee should not be <br />charged. M/S/P Fraser/Mazzara to adopt $25 rezoning fee for ag <br />preserve as minimal charge for paperwork. (3 ayes; Eder, Morgan abstain.) <br />H. Parks Commission, Retiring Members - Dunn will work on some <br />kind of commemorative activity plus putting names on wood plaque, such <br />as has been done in the past. <br />The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. Submitted by: <br />Ilene Johnson, Acting Secretary <br />RESOLUTIONS: R83-20 Tax Forfeited Property <br />R83-21 Approval of Mn/DOT I-94 Project <br />R83-22 Fees for Services <br />R83-23 Orchard/Sinclair Simple Lot Division <br />