01-08-85 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 8, 1985 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Morgan at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers. Present: Armstrong, Christ, Dunn, Mazzara, Administrator Klaers, Engineer Bohrer. 1. Agenda M/S/P Dunn/Mazzara - To approve the agenda as amended: Add 4B - Letter from Charles Dayton regarding Sunfish Lake. (Motion carried 5-0) 2. Minutes M/S/P Mazzara/Dunn - To approve the minutes of the December 18, 1984 City Council meeting as written. (Motion carried 5-0) 3. Claims M/S/P Mazzara/Dunn - To approve claims 85633 thru 85699 as presented. (Motion carried 5-0) 4. Public Inquiries A. Letter from lR-:Lehard and Veronica Durand The Council reviewed a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Durand's attorney (Edward S. Simonet, Jr. ) in which he states that Roscoe Collopy (the original owner of the property in question) registered the entire tract, and by deed to Lewerer dated August 5, 1946, conveyed the parcel the two rod strip was contained in, but excepted this out to be dedicated for highway purposes for the public. Since the two rod strip was reserved, it remained in Collopy's estate. This was not on the tax rolls and evidently was dropped after the 1946 conveyance. An action would be necessary in the probate court as to Collopy's estate. l Possibly an additional registration proceeding would be necessary. Mr. Simonet suggested that the Durand's ask the City of Lake Elmo to purchase this two rod strip, and in turn sell it to the Durand's for access to their landlocked property. The Administrator discussed this option with the City Attorney. The Attorney stated that the City cannot purchase tax forfeited land, and then resell it. Mr. and Mrs. Durand then requested that before they spend a great deal of money in the courts (establishing ownership of the 33 foot strip of land in question) the Council give an indication as to whether or not they would grant a road frontage variance so that a home can be constructed on this now landlocked piece of property. Reference was made to the Steindorf application for a road frontage variance, which was similar to the Durand situation. Mr. Steindorf was allowed access to his property, but was denied a lot split. Mazzara stated that he did not feel the City is in a position to make a determination as to whether or not the lot is buildable until the ownership of the 33 foot parcel of property has been decided.