Laserfiche WebLink
i~inner Raatikka stated that he feels affected property owners should be <br /> ormed of the alternatives being considered. These alternatives would <br /> <br />require a feasibility study and public hearing. <br /> <br />Motion by Comcilms~er Cox and seconded by Comcilms~ber DeLuca directing <br />City Staff to prepare a resolution for Comcil adoption that would order a <br />feasibility study, that would include financial aspects, for Alternative <br />#2, Phase 1 and 2 for sewer service and Alternative %1, Phase 1 for water <br />service to the Industrial/Business area and once across l~y. %10, eae~ to <br />the Schwartzman property. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Comcil~rs Sorteberg, Cox, <br />DeLuca and Pearson. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />_Approve Plans And _Specifications And Set Bid Date For <br /> Inp_rov~ment Project %87-2 (Roanoke 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. (m Monday, March 23, <br />1987. (Please refer to resolution file for Resoluti(~ %87-49). <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilm:~hers Sorteberg, Cox, <br />DeLuca and Pearson. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />City Engineer Raatikka presented a resolution for council adoption that <br />would restrict perking on Roanoke Street. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmmmber 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 Roanoke Street (MSAS 105). (Please refer to resolution file for <br />Resolution %87-50). <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilm~ers Sorteberg, Cox, <br />DeLuca and Pearson. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />~gu_ est For Discussion Reqardinq Minor Subdivision: Case Of <br /> Mr. Jake Barthold: <br /> <br />Mr. Barthold was present and stated that on January 27 he 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 t~porary 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 />easement or access to the rear l~rcel. <br /> <br />Councilm~ber Cox stated that he reviewed past documentation 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 />