Laserfiche WebLink
;,ipE^= /: -xo, > <br />roval: <br />f a private road <br />Hennepin County <br />County Road 19» <br />ty*8 100* right- <br />sen County Roads <br />8 Outlot A, with <br />lat property can <br />Lon B - Designate <br />:tion of at least <br />ent in the plat <br />: Lot 2 that any <br />bject to access <br />ately have to be <br />is constructed, <br />i unless interior <br />t over the wetland <br />ty Easements along <br />>ad 84, per current <br />B»t. A - . <br /><9 -/f-SS <br />XOnllG FIUE MO. 1301 <br />city op OSOHO MOTICE of PLA8HI86 COMMISSIOM ACTION <br />P.O. Box 66 <br />Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 7/21/88 <br />TO: David 6 Fredrick White COPIES TO: Marvin G. Lovlein <br />14195 Pauls Drive 6025 Abbott Ave N <br />Rogers, MN 55374 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 <br />mm mm ^ ^ mm mm mm ^ mm «« ^ ^ mm mm mm mm mm mm mm m m mm mm mm mm mm <mm mm mm <br />TYPB OF APPLICATION: Subdivision <br />DATS OP MBBTIMG: 7/18/88 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against <br />Pianniiig CowBission reooBBesds the followings <br />Tabled for reasons noted below <br />NOTES AMU SPECIAL COEDITIOHS: <br />1. Planning Commission requested that the applicant work with neighboring <br />property owners to consider a logical, comprehensive development plan <br />for the area, in order that future road needs can be addressed. <br />2. Planning Commission felt that a topographical map of the entire <br />property is necessary in order to determine future development <br />potential given this division of one parcel into three parcels. <br />3. Planning Commission requested that staff investigate the City*s policy <br />regarding development of the anticipated road connection between North <br />Arm Lane and County Road 19? l.e. Would it be public or private if it <br />was a through road? Who would build it? Who would pay the costs? <br />Planning Commission was unable to take formal action on your reqi’est <br />to reconsider division of just the house and three acres from the larger <br />parcel, because the application had been tabled until August 15th and the <br />interested members of the public had left. However, Planning Commission <br />did suggest that a topographical map would likely not be required for a <br />division to split off just the house, but that they would likely condition <br />approval upon dedication of a portion of future roadwf<y at the southeast <br />quadrant of the property, and require that any future division of the <br />remaining large parcel be required to access from internally provided <br />roadways, not directly to County Road 19. It would appear feasible to have <br />an interior road serving the entire northerly remaining parcel, so that at <br />most only 1 new access point is created on County Roads 84 and 19. <br />Staff would support approval of the one lot division without a <br />topographical survey based on the conditions noted above. Staff would <br />suggest a reconfiguration of the north boundary line as shown on the <br />attached conceptual map. <br />Mm <br />1\ ^ ^ _■ <br />V ■ <br />mm <br />Zoning Fils <br />Notice of F <br />July 21, 19 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />In ore <br />soon as po <br />three lot <br />topographic <br />three acre: <br />to discuss <br />It would b< <br />meeting. <br />The n< <br />1988. in • <br />contact St <br />proceed. C <br />will be pr <br />Planning O <br />owners to <br />staff's opJ <br />planning, <br />owners to ' <br />If thi <br />contact thi <br />If yo <br />minutes, <br />approval b