My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.2. SR 04-29-1996
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1996
>
04/29/1996 - SPECIAL/JOINT
>
5.2. SR 04-29-1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:32:18 AM
Creation date
3/12/2003 8:00:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
4/29/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />April 24, 1996 <br />Page Two <br /> <br />A question was asked about what were the requirements for a hookup to the sewer <br />and water. It was indicated that the City ordinance requires hookup within four <br />years, but that existing wells could still be used for outside irrigation purposes if <br />they are properly segregated from the City water system. <br /> <br />There were a number of questions about how units were arrived at, and what was <br />the minimum lot size to create a buildable lot. It was indicated that the zoning of <br />the area is Rlc, which requires 80 feet of frontage and 10,000 square feet. <br /> <br />Mr. Rahn indicated that he had previously dedicated to the City a 66-foot right-of- <br />way which we had shown as still his property. We indicated at the meeting that <br />this would be checked further and if that were the case, he would be given a lesser <br />assessment. <br /> <br />A question was asked about how the 60-foot right-of-way and new road would <br />affect some major mature trees. We indicated that if a feasibility study was <br />ordered, we would do the survey work necessary to have these answers at the <br />public hearing. <br /> <br />We indicated that the question which we needed to come to some consensus on was <br />whether or not the property owners would like to proceed on to the next step, which is a <br />feasibility study to get more information regarding potential of sewer, water, and streets <br />in the area. Each property owner in attendance gave an indication of their feelings. These <br />are summarized below. <br /> <br />Goenner <br />Bickman <br />Olson <br />Knutson <br />Guck <br />Hartman <br /> <br />John <br />Chicoine <br />Waite <br />Lofgren <br />Rahn <br />Waite <br />Swanson <br /> <br />Not too interested in more information. <br />In favor of proceeding to the next phase. <br />Not sure of position. <br />In favor of going further. <br />In favor of going forward. <br />Not in attendance but phoned prior to the meeting to indicate he is in favor <br />of proceeding. <br />Not in attendance at meeting. <br />In favor of receiving more information. <br />Not in attendance at the meeting. <br />Not in attendance at the meeting. <br />Not in favor of sewer and water. <br />Not in attendance at the meeting. <br />Not in favor of City utilities. <br /> <br />230/307-2212. apr <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.