Laserfiche WebLink
. OF A PLANNING CCliWISSION MEEHNC HELD NOVEMBER 1, 1976 - PA(E 2 <br />table. Several neighbors were interested in knowing how many <br />lots were less than 5 acres. They felt that this is a 5 acre <br />zone and should remain as such. However, some of these same <br />nei^ors own 1, 2 and 3 acre lots themselves. After all the <br />p«jblic were heard, the public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. <br />iXfter continued discussion, the Planning Commission tabled <br />this matter to allow the applicant time to submit the follow­ <br />ing information: <br />(1) <br />(2) <br />(3) <br />Review by the Minndiaha Credc Watershed District to <br />deteimine actual wetlands designation in relation <br />to areas shown on topog. <br />Review by agency such as Hennepin County Conservation <br />Department or Hickok 6 Associates to deteimine flood <br />plam area and what the restrictions might be. <br />Review by Hennepin County regarding proposed rerouting <br />of Coimty Road 6 and vhat effect the proposed sub­ <br />division might have on any such future plans. <br />Hake moved, Guthrie 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 yo-Tech item: It should be noted that the Planning <br />Comnission Members present are opposed to the Vo-Tech <br />proposal. <br />Motion - Ayes (7), Nays (0). <br />The Zoning Administrator stated that copies of the final <br />plat had been sent to each Conmission ^fe^ber. Both parcels <br />exceed the minimum requirements of 2 acres and 200* lot <br />wid^s. Hake moved, Hosfield seconded, to recommend approval <br />m^ect to receipt of the Park Dedication Fee and approval <br />from the County regarding location of any cuib cuts. <br />Motion - 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 />Nw 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 />the 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 OF MINUTES <br />MEETING OCTOBER 18, 1976 <br />FRED LUCAS <br />2055 SIXTH AVENUE N. <br />SUBDIVISI(»I (FINAL) <br />(#95) <br />DAVID J. KRUSKDPF <br />1200 WILmURST TRAIL <br />LOT REARRANGEMENT <br />(#98) <br />ROBERT JOHNSON <br />1121 ELMWOOD AVENUE <br />VARIANCE - LOT AREA 6 WIDTH <br />(#164)