Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
DANCE - 7:30 P.M. <br />..k <br />C HEARING - 7:30 P.M. <br />TOWN PROPERTIES, INC. <br />NAVARRE LANE <br />VISION (PRELIMINARY) <br />#266 <br />fT- ^ <br />MINUTES OF A PLANNING COWISSION MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 6, 1977 - PAGE 2 <br />states that they approve of the access as proposed and that <br />any :foture development along the County ri^t of way would <br />require County approval. <br />Guthrie moved, Hurr seconded, to recommend approval of the <br />preliminary plat subject to the following: <br />1. Open space easement over Outlets B and C and the <br />drainageways. <br />2. Underlying access and utility easement. <br />3. Park Dedication Fee. <br />Motion - Ayes (4), Nays (0) (Nfember Hassel stepped down <br />for this application). <br />Chairwoman ficDonald announced that this was the time and <br />place for a public hearing on the petition of Robert <br />Harvey, Sr. for a subdivision of property located at <br />4660 S. Watertown Road. The Asst. Zoning Administrator <br />presented the Notice of Public Hearing and the Affidavit <br />of Publication. <br />A1 Olson stated that the applicant is requesting sub­ <br />division approval of his property into two parcels. <br />This division consists of a piece of property that now <br />contains 5.8 acres and another at 9.8 acres. This is <br />a 5 acre zoning district. The eastern parcel contains <br />an existing home and farm out buildings which have not <br />been accurately located on tlie survey. Access to the <br />eastern parcel would need to be over any existing drive­ <br />way or else a new access permit would be required from <br />the County. <br />Mr. Rosengren, representing the applicant, ivas present. The <br />Comnission requested him to indicate where the structures were <br />located. He stated that the house is 135 ft. back from <br />the center of the road and the bam sits about 70 ft. from <br />the creek bed and approximately 120 ft. from tlie lot line. <br />After all the pjublic were heard, the public hearing was <br />closed at 8:15 p.m. <br />The Comnission discussed the vagueness of the setbacks of <br />the existing structures and the possibility that a variance <br />may be necessary. Tlie applicant stated that he was not <br />aware of the fact that the location of the outbuildings <br />was to be shown. A1 Olson pointed out that the applicants <br />are aware that the lot consisting of 9.8 acres would be <br />one building site and could not be divided in the future <br />unless the zoning ordinance should be changed. Final <br />plat would not be necessary for tliis application. <br />Hassel moved, Guthrie seconded, to recommend preliminary <br />approval con^tioned upon a conservation easement over <br />the creek and subject to a park dedication fee. There <br />appears to be a need for a variance and reconmend tliat <br />a variance be granted depending on tlieir verification of <br />tlie location of the buildings. Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (0). <br />CROaSTOlVN PROPERTIES <br />(continued) <br />(#266) <br />U w <br />PUBLIC HEARING - 8:05 P.M. <br />ROBERT HARVEY, SR. <br />4660 S. WATERTOW ROAD <br />SUBDIVISION (PRELIMINARY) <br />(#297) <br />MINUTES OF A PLA] <br />Ron Hamack, Mik <br />Department of Na <br />this application <br />access, dredging <br />promotion. <br />Hank Muhich info <br />representatives <br />the neighboring <br />proposal which i <br />submitted. The <br />Lots 3 and 4 dir <br />be too narrow to <br />coming into the <br />Ron Hamack stat< <br />the DNR, they we‘ <br />and to comnent oi <br />to develop the li <br />reasonable acces: <br />their wildlife pt <br />it as a sedged oi <br />wildlife. Out ii <br />extension was to <br />be good bass, pai <br />ing area in anotl <br />impossible to do <br />wildlife and watc <br />natives to be coi <br />When the initial <br />proposed by Vict( <br />Steve Wilensky fi <br />another altemat; <br />the existing navi <br />coming up with a <br />channel. There v <br />they felt that i1 <br />some open water i <br />resource value cc <br />value associated <br />The dredging invc <br />but in the channc <br />into the channel <br />Mr. Hamack state <br />excavation with a <br />disturbance comin <br />would accomodate <br />ponds being const <br />itself. <br />Mr. Hamack state <br />channel on tlie cc <br />adjacent property <br />was no requiremer <br />rights from those <br />a legal channel a <br />if it were necess