Laserfiche WebLink
iE~inner Raatikka stated that he fee/s affected property owners shoul~ be <br /> ormed of the alternatives being considered. These alternatives would <br /> <br />require a feasibility study ~ public hearing. <br /> <br />Motion by Counciln~nber Cox and seconded by Co~mcilme~ber DeLuca directing <br />City Staff to prepare a resolutio~ for Counc/1 adoption that would o£der a <br />feasibility study, that would include financial aspects, for Alternative <br />%2, Phase I and 2 for sewer service and Alternative %1, Phase I for water <br />service to the Industrial/Business area and once across m y. %10, ea~ to <br />the Schwartzman property. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilms~bers Sorteberg, Cox, <br />DeLuca and Pearson. Voting No.. None. <br /> <br />_Approve Plans And _Speeifieati~fls /md Set Bid Date <br /> I.p_rovem~nt Project %87-2 CRsanoke Street N.W.) <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Cox and seconded by Councilmember Pearson to adopt <br />Resolution %87-49 approving plans and specifications for Improvement <br />Project %87-2 and setting the bid date for 11:00 a.m. on Monday, March 23, <br />1987. (Please refer to resolution file for Resolution %87-49). <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilmembers Sorteberg, Cox, <br />DeLuca and Pearson. Voting NO: None. t <br /> <br />City Engineer Raatikka presented a resolution for-council adoption that <br />would restrict parking on Roanoke Street. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Sorteberg and seconded by Councilmember DeLuca to <br />adopt Resolution %87-50 to ban the parking of motor vehicles on the east <br />side of l~anoke Street (MSAS 105). (Please refer to resolution file for <br />Resolution %87-50). <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, CouncilOrs Sorteberg, Cox, <br />DeLuca and Pearson. Voting NO: None. <br /> <br />Case %13.- Bequ_ est For Discussion Regarding Minor Subdivision.- Case Of <br /> Mr. Jake Barthold: <br /> <br />Mr. Barthold was present and stated that on January 27 be requested a metes <br />and bounds subdivision and Council recommended proceeding with a minor <br />subdivision with the provision of a 66 foot easement along the length of <br />the property and that a road with a temporary cul-de-sac for access to the <br />west parcel be constructed within 3 years. Mr. Barthold stated that he <br />wants the same consideration given to his metes and bounds request as was <br />given to a parcel north of his that was subdivided into 3 parcels by metes <br />and bounds 2 years ago. ~at subdivision did not have any requirements for <br />easem~t or access to the rear parcel. <br /> <br />Councilmsmber Cox stated that he reviewed past docanentation regarding that <br />subdivision and it was a case of existing dwellings on property that had <br />never been subdivided. <br /> <br />Jake Barthold inquired why that property did not have to go through the <br /> <br />Page 13 of 21 <br /> <br /> <br />