My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 04-25-1977
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1977
>
CC 04-25-1977
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:11:57 PM
Creation date
11/9/2006 3:46:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />,.' " <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Minutes of Regular Counci I Meetilg <br />Page six <br /> <br />Apri I 25, 1977 <br /> <br />Concern was expressed re how It is known that the bureau really <br />does any good; apparently no statistics on this; are the youth doing <br />any better than before - what haDpens?; suggested it to be "poor <br />policy" to ask for money with no proof of benefit. <br /> <br />Clauson said the first year thera Is usually control, after that, <br />the Bureau cannot assure they wi II not go back to whatever they <br />we re do I n g. <br /> <br />Counci I queried why school districts are not listed as contributors <br />fo r the program. <br /> <br />Hanson noted that Human Rights Commission member, Joy Class, <br />expressed enthusiasm for the Bureau; her personal opinion being it <br />is more sensible than St. Paul's "Buddy Buddy" system. <br /> <br />Council expressed some Skepticism re Federal funding of a program <br />to start it, and then withdrawing; if there is a need, the program <br />should have been sold before the federal funding was secured. <br /> <br />Case No. 76-38. Sidevard Variance for Garaoe <br />Wingert reported that he discussed the variance application with <br />Building Inspector Larry Squires; apparently, a series of min- <br />understandings Is the reason for the present dilemma. <br /> <br />Wingert noted that the uti Ilty poles pretty well indicate the lot <br />line; consequently, an approximate 4t' sldeyard variance is needed <br />for the existing new garage at 3609 Pascal Avenue. <br /> <br />Wingert noted that the Planning Commission had Included several <br />options In its recommendations to Counci I. Planning Commission's <br />concern is that cars have to back out onto County Road E, which Is <br />potentially dangerous because of the "blind" short driveway which <br />now exists. Wingert said the new garage lines up with the house <br />(which Is also too close to the road). <br /> <br />Wingert referred Counci I, and Mr. Miller, to sketch of 6 options <br />which were submitted by the Planning Commission; suggested that <br />option as would be his recommendation to best provlde a safe <br />driveway access for both garages, providing a turn around area so <br />cars can drive forward onto County Road E rather than backing <br />into traffic. <br /> <br />Mr. Milier said that option 115 would be acceptable to him. <br /> <br />Hanson moved, seconded by Crichton, that Councl I grant the 4t' <br />sideyard variance for the garage contingent upon implementation <br />of option #5 driveway to be provided by the contractor, Miles <br />Garage, as indicated In sketch dated 4/25/77. Motion carried <br />unanimously. <br /> <br />Reouest for Reduction In SDeclal Assessments - Bueslno ProDertv <br />Mr. Clarence Rexelsen, realtor representing the Bueslngs, explained <br />that the Buesing property consists of 8t acres; much of property <br />is marsh land; asked Councl I to adjust the special assessments <br />which he says are In excess of the benefits to the property. <br /> <br />Councl I reviewed letter from Engineer Christoffersen (4/22/77) re <br />his revLew of the water and sewer assessments (total $22,537.10); <br />believes that the Improvement assessments levied to the Buesing <br />property to be equitable If property Is properly divided and Buesing <br />Is al lowed to fl II portions of the swamp along Hamline Avenue for <br />building sites. <br /> <br />Council deterred its action re request for reduction In special <br />assessments, pending receipt of reports from Planner and Rice Creek <br />Watershed. <br /> <br />Rexelsen stated that It Is economically not feasible to fl I I the <br />swamp area. <br /> <br />-6- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.