Laserfiche WebLink
M <br />Thomas J. Ban«tt, <br />April 12, <br />Page ihrec <br />• - «/>t ihtf one iiiv son %'ishcs to build on <br />In my situation, ihe Lci which is f outlet. The comimssion is anempijng to <br />a-.,hin 100% of the 19S4 requitemems 3 is a "Lot of Record", wtthiti an _ <br />Ordinance, this action is itrc«cc^oO “J ^ ^ ^ jq,., current area requirement Lot a, <br />•*R" District, seiviced by a hanaUiry se er • ,^1^. 950/^ of the current area <br />in fact meets the c’arrcnl J uJijer the jrindfather provision, sec. !'' <br />subd.(b)(axi n iv Lot 3 today, mis granasamci <br />language of this pros ision^f. commission's insistence that I re-subdivide <br />:;tioi°W rut^stdedparca'd adhere >o Zrd^sSXV-n <br />100"/o of the current requircmeniN- <br />The pixnning commission s "90i«"'«"‘'^Ys*orReco'r^ but aTone unplatted parcel. They <br />view Lots 1. 3. -1 and Outlet I as separate Lo« ^'Yterence to mv Lots and have given that as <br />have mentioned the phrase Howter^ nowhere in the Zoning Ordinance or .he <br />“sS::n^otd" <br />-.V c'ass 1 Subdivision shall be exempt horn platimg by .he Ci.y <br />an' ;ra 1 be -ermiited subdivision by me.es ana bouiius <br />W'on iesenbed by a Registered Land Su-bor ^ -f <br />ore or more of tlie following criteria ......»h' sutoi.ision _ <br />Ji'vision of property ptcviously combtnea lor tux purposes. <br />a, careful reading of this provision, in „Y‘e' m^oU*'rrcaid!M new subdivision ' <br />“ "'’"'rro or arr^u^v other way is‘a nusintcrp’rcta.ion of its language and intent. <br />nroposQls. io'.or.hwH-c ui ai i . • <br />^ 1 Anrhired'carcsls as "one" single lot which <br />I believe the City uto ia doing so. the new subdivision <br />would requite subdivision tor f« jccordii.u to the Hennepin County ''’iven <br />iSr-^rSS^tVitans .hat all indst ldua. lots owmed by one owner are to g