Laserfiche WebLink
6. ~h!e: Under Case #1, unfinished business frc~ August 27, 1985 <br /> ager~a, Case t3.C. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Heitman, Oouncil~bers Sorteberg, COx, <br />Reimann and Schlueter. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />,~i;~.3RT,T C T{EARINC~ <br /> <br />Oouncil adjourned at 7:40 p.m. in order to conduct the foll(~ing public <br />hearings: <br /> <br />1. Request for off-sale liquor license; case of Mr. George Wilcox. <br /> <br />2. Vacation of old CSA~ %5 in front of Lord of bile Lutheran (burda. <br /> <br />Mayor Heitman called the special Oouncil meeting back to order at 7:45 p.m. <br /> <br />Request .~or Sketch Plan Review Of Pro_Dosed Plat; Case Of Mr. Dick <br /> <br />Mr. Carson presented copies of a sketch Blan for Hold Addition ~roperty <br />located at Industry Avenue and Magnesiu~ Street) and requested Oouncil's <br />conditional approval to it prior to proceeding with the cost of platting. Mr. <br />Carson ~oted that the approach to the ~ew lot will be frcm Magnesitl~ Street. <br /> <br />Mr. Schnelle stated that Planning and Zoning reo~er~=d that Mr. Carson go <br />with a convenience plat and that variances be granted to topography, soil <br />borings and street grades. <br /> <br />Mr. Carson stated that the developer has no Ixoble~ with Ite~ %7 in City <br />Engineer Raatikka's letter dated Sept~ber 10, 1985, regarding trunk storm <br />drainage assessments. <br /> <br />Motion by Cou~cilme~ber COx and seconded by Oouncilme~ber Sorteberg ir~]icating <br />Council's satisfact/on with Mr. Carson's sketch plan for Holm Addition with the <br />provisions contained in Planning and Zoning's r~tion of August 12, <br />1985, City Engineer Raatikka's letter dated Sept~ber 10, 1985 and City (1)de. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Heit~an, councilme~bers Sorteberg, (Dx, <br />Reimann and Schlueter. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case %7.' Review Of Ramsey Board Of Review Action In 1985 ~y The State <br /> Co~missioner of Revenue: <br /> <br />Mr. Schnelle stated that the County Assessor has petitioned the State Board of <br />~klualization to review action taken by Ra~sey's Board of Review to reduoe <br />property valuations on certain businesses. Mr. Sdm~elle stated, and <br />Council~ber (Dx agreed, that he is not sure it is within the realm of the <br />county Assessor's jurisdiction to bypess the county Board of Bevie~ and take <br />the matter directly to the State. <br /> September 10, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 4 of 11 <br /> <br /> <br />