My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2005 City Council Meetings
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
2005 City Council Meetings
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2009 2:48:15 PM
Creation date
12/7/2009 2:47:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
550
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council January 10, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 12 <br />• the survey said it was going to be, and the property owners did not realize that until the <br />neighbors pulled a permit for a fence. He stated that the Planning Commission had reviewed <br />this request, and they felt it met all the requirements of the subdivision code. He stated that <br />there would be no park dedication fee required for this subdivision because there is no further <br />intensification of the land. <br />Director Ericson stated that when a subdivision occurs, there is a review of easements, and there <br />was a perimeter drainage and utility easement granted for this property. He stated when the lot <br />line shifts, then the easement is no longer a perimeter utility easement. He stated that the <br />easement slices through part of the house and garage, so that needs to be resolved. He stated <br />that the next item on the agenda is to vacate that easement.. He stated that the property owners <br />have already executed an easement document which essentially rededicates that same easement, <br />but consistent with the lot lines. <br />Council Member Flaherty asked whether either of the residents had a problem with this. <br />Director Ericson stated that they do not. <br />Council Member Flaherty asked if there were any administrative fees associated with this on the <br />City's part. <br />Director Ericson stated that there may be some minimal legal fees involved. He stated it had <br />• been communicated to the property owner that if there were additional expenses, they would be <br />responsible for them. <br />MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Stigney. To approve Resolution 6419 Approving <br />a Lot Line Adjustment (Minor Subdivision) Between 8265 and 8281 Spring Lake Road, and to <br />waive the reading. <br />Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. <br />I. Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 757, an Ordinance Vacating an <br />Unused and Excess Utility Easement Associated with 8265 Spring Lake Road <br />(Ericson) <br />Director Ericson stated that the property owners have executed a new easement which replaces <br />the former easement, but City Charter requires that any release of easement areas be done by <br />ordinance, so this is the first reading which would effectuate that vacation. <br />MOTION/SECOND. Stigney/Flaherty. To approve the Introduction and First Reading of <br />Ordinance 757, an Ordinance Vacating an Unused and Excess Utility Easement Associated with <br />8265 Spring Lake Park, and to waive the reading. <br />• Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.