Laserfiche WebLink
MDUTSS OF A PLANNING CCMOSSION MEBnNG HELD NOVEhBER 1, 1976 - PAGE 2 <br />o table. Several nei^ors were interested in knowing how mny <br />lots were less than 5 acres. They felt that this is a S acre <br />zom and should renain as such. However, some of these same <br />neighbors, own 1, 2 and 3 acre lots themselves. After all the <br />public were heard, the public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. <br />After continued discussion, the Planting Goninission tabled <br />this matter to allow the a^licant time to submit the follow­ <br />ing infomation: <br />VD <br />(?) <br />(3) <br />Revt.ew by the Minnehaha Credc libtershed District t <br />detexmine actual wetlands designation in relation <br />to mas shown on topog. <br />Review by agency such as Hennepin County Conservat <br />Department or Hickok 8 Associates to detendne flo <br />plam area and what the restrictions mi^t be. <br />Review by Hennepin County regarding proposed rerou <br />of County Road 6 and >hat eHect the proposed sub­ <br />division might have on any sudi future plans. <br />Hake moved, (kxthvie seconded, that the minutes of the <br />October 18, 1976, meeting be approved as corrected: <br />Page 8, the following sentence be added to the Hennepin <br />County Vo-Tech item: It should be noted that the Planning <br />fTj Conmission Menbers present are opposed to the Vo-Tech <br />proposal. <br />Motion - Ayes (7), Nays (0). <br />The Zoning Adnini:i trator stated that copies of the final <br />pdat had been sent to each Commission Menber. Both parcels <br />ercceed the mininun requirements of 2 acres and 200* lot <br />widtiis. Hake moved, Fiosfield seconded, to reconnmid approval <br />subject to receipt of the Paiic Dedication Fee and approval <br />from the County regarding location of any curb cuts. <br />^fotion - Ayes (7', Nays (0). <br />Hank Muhich informed the Conmission that this final plat <br />is the same as the preliminary and meets all the requirements. <br />Van Nest moved, Guthrie seconded, to reconmend approval of <br />the final plat of the lot rearrangement. Motion - Ayes (7), <br />Nays (0). <br />New applicant was not present to submit necessary informa­ <br />tion. Richard Tiegen, a neighboring property owner, was <br />present and asked if he could address the Conmission. He <br />wanted to express his concern about the drainage should <br />tile road be raised. The Planning Conmission assured him <br />that the drainage would be maintained. <br />STEVE WALLACK (T.M.G.) <br />(continued) <br />(#188) <br />APPROVAL OFMIMnES <br />I€ETING OCIDEER 18, 1976 <br />FRED LUCAS <br />2055 SIXTH AVENUE N. <br />SUBDIVISION (FINAL) <br />(#95) <br />DAVID J. KRUSKDPF <br />1200 WnJHURST TRAIL <br />LOT RBARRANOBMENT <br />(#98) <br />ROBERT JOHNSON <br />1121 ElMMOOD AVENUE <br />VARIANCE - LOT AREA 8 WIDTH (#164)