My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2004-04-06 P & Z
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Minutes
>
2000-2022
>
2004
>
2004-04-06 P & Z
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2006 2:43:55 PM
Creation date
1/17/2006 3:28:21 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
Planning& Zoning Commission <br />April 6, 2004 <br />Meeting Minutes <br />Street Vacation/Easement Submitted by Mr. Clay Alcock (Mill Road <br />2. <br />th <br />Extension/8 Street) <br />Chair Hanson opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. <br />Ms. Jennifer Smith representing Mr. Alcock explained that the issue before the City is <br />whether to approve of the street vacation and not how the property will be divided. <br />Commissioner Wilharber commented that by state law it is a 50/50 split of the land. <br />Mr. Larry Perron of 1798 Main Street explained that there are three pieces of land <br />because he owns two parcels. He then said that he is not necessarily for the vacation <br />because it compromises the access to his garage because of the design and layout of the <br />house and garage. <br />Commissioner Klennert Hunt asked if the additional piece of land would be landlocked. <br />Mr. Perron indicated that there is the potential that it would be a landlocked parcel. <br />Ms. Smith indicated it is her understanding that you go back and look at who owned the <br />property when it was platted. She then said that it is their contention that the second <br />parcel owned by Mr. Perron is outside of the plat and does not play a part at all in how <br />the vacated property is divided. <br />Ms. Linda Broussard Vickers of 6756 Centerville Road commented that the Commission <br />is only looking at whether the City has any use for the parcel for a possible future street <br />extension. <br />Commissioner Wilharber asked if the City would be liable for not allowing access that <br />previously existed. <br />Ms. Smith commented that there is Minnesota case law and Attorney General opinions <br />that state that when looking at a vacation a city must look only at the public interest and <br />not private interest. <br />Commissioner Wilharber said he is concerned that the City could cause an issue by <br />precluding a person from using an area that they have been using for years. <br />Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated the City Attorney has reviewed the matter <br />and did not express concern over the vacation. <br />Chair Hanson commented that the City is notgoing to extend that road and it is currently <br />a dead end for two pieces of property so he does not see any issues for the City. <br />Page 2 of 6 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.