My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01778
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1700-1799
>
pf_01778
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/21/2024 12:33:14 PM
Creation date
2/21/2024 12:31:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1778
Planning Files - Type
Zoning Text Amendment
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
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
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS <br />MEMO <br />TG: City Council <br />FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson <br />City Clerk <br />SUBJECT: Yackel Lot Division <br />November 13, 1979 <br />As you will recall, several months ago, the Council approved the <br />division of a parcel of property owned by Roger Yackel and located on <br />Wentworth Avenue, west of Clement Street. The Council action which <br />authorized the division refers only to the frontages of the two lots <br />and the park contribution. <br />While the minutes relating to Mr. Yackel's planning application <br />do not reflect any discussion regarding the existing, old residence, <br />both the Planner's report and Mr. Yackel's street vacation petition <br />indicate his intent to raze the structure. Last week we received a <br />call from a woman who is in the process of purchasing the structure <br />(and lot) with the intent of renovating and inhabiting the home. The <br />sale is to occur on November 21st. <br />By this memo, I am asking whether staff should become involved in <br />this matter. Since the Council approval was not contingent on razing of <br />the structure, we cannot require the razing, nor can the City prohibit <br />the sale of the structure for habitation. Should we, however, request <br />that the Yackels permit Paul to perform a code review on the structure <br />prior to the sale? Or, since we do not currently require residential <br />certificates of occupancy, should we simply consider the matter closed? <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.