Laserfiche WebLink
aministrator <br />ir# - <br />Lie Hearing <br />bh <br />b <br />4 <br />W"' <br />'An <br />mrn:'m <br />p:i;iy y- <br />Lus Sketch <br />' mm::; :|c,rT..-r <br />gv;. i'-s!.-’ i:.:,>;r. <br />acre parcel into two lots. <br />n proposed Lot 1 on January <br />ermit from Hennepin County <br />1 existing structure on Lot <br />LB Zoning District from the <br />n proposed Lot 2 continues <br />Ln there is no residence to <br />itructure. The preliminary <br />. It may be appropriate in <br />il, possibly prior to final <br />>ertinent lot standards for <br />w-im^rnmr’m <br />iliilfe <br />WM <br />m <br />m m <br />Zoning Pile #1372 February 16, 1989 Page 2 of 2 <br />properLy in .7/i\’^lon tVa''r.-5?“„J?r 't"*. on“w .VdltVoTl^ c\Vro7l ‘S' <br />m.a. -ill b. . SAC payment at th. tiae t "e L?l'/in\"f.pirA^"i'’.VuVd.‘“ <br />Vacatloti of Rlght-Of-liay <br />Loma LindV'ald‘^*nm*^Mj!fi^\‘^*^®‘^ right-of-way for the public road shown as <br />seSL linL -h*^'dedicated area also includes the <br />Jublic^ dedicate roadway and are now located within theaeaicated right-of-way. in addition, the Citv muaf- ««v fn.r- <br />Avenui°cei Vhe^Vtta”chid“p intersection of Loma Linda and Loma Linda ^ attached Engineer's sketch. Exhibit P. Note cer vour <br />proposed*L^t^2.*" portion of the roadway still intersects within <br />Acoeae <br />drlv/Vo*r‘*T«VV*r^/A. Foo^«t the proposed location of the private <br />^i^y must ask that the curb cut for the new drive be <br />west. Unfortunately the applicant would not be <br />thi easi-^r^® higher elevations as they meet the roadbed in <br />icces? d?ive.^°''^ ® involve more filling for the <br />Drainage <br />j>s « receives drainage from both the west and the north and serves <br />maui-h 14^j area before it reaches the culvert located at the <br />, V”® proposed Lot 2. Review Engineer's sketch. Exhibit P, that <br />5® drainage easements. Cook recommends a minimum"of <br />City accroval''* restricted or modifications made withoutcity approval. In addition, we must ask the 10' wide drainage and utilitv <br />easement be continued along the south and east lot lines of proposed Lot <br />An approval recommendation should include the following conditions: <br />ii. A. drainage easements as set forth in City Engineer's <br />**^*^"*96 easements within Lot 1 and L<^ 2 and <br />« ®£ drainage and utility easements 10* wide along thesouth and east boarders of Lot 2. «Aong cne <br />interlelli'on'' VrstaSc^^at^ri v^e <br />approvalt*^^”^ cabin on Lot 2 to be removed prior to final plat