09-19-1977 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

:s had been ;ed draft Tonka 1977. Vfe Lth any of :erpreted the ?d they would meeting with lied for e. The redraft for the (after license was made after ranee costs onditional Use f Phase 2 could application was cation was 1 use permit. ski ordinance. September 26th ■ “.I ■ ■%' Planning Commission and Council Hank ^kJhich, Zoning Administrator April 27, 1977 SUBJECT: Engner Johnson - 360 North Arm Lane Subdivision (Preliminary) This is a proposal to divide the 6 acre parcel resulting frexn the subdivision of 10 acres approved by Council on November 10, 1975 (copy of minutes enclosed). At the time this was approved, we also approved a variance of 29* from the width requirement on the south lot because of a natural tree boundary. We failed to provide an easement for possible future widening of North Arm Lane. The original plat shows North Aim Lane to be 33' wide. This, of course, is a result of incomplete data indicated on the plans. I believe we all took this as a half of a 66' right-of-way. Our new ordinance will provide for this. This plan is preliminary only. It indicates minimum two acres on each lot. I believe some revisions will be nerp«;sary hewever. We should provide an easement lo.. North Arm Lane which is a public road. We usually require 60' width for public roads. We could provide similar easements on properties along North Arm Lane as they are subdivided so we can eventually have adequate width for a road and utilities. The private road shown on the plan is only 33' wide. Although this road provides access for only one lot, I wonder if we shouldn't require 50' as we do on all private roads. If we do require these additional widths, the dimensions of the proposed lots would change in order to provide the necessary mininum 2-acre area. The larger lot consists of som.e wetlands and also includes the same channel that runs through the Victoria Grain property. I do not have the area of the wetlands. The channel is an issue we must consider again. We should stipulate that only the one lot has riparian rights and only if the channel is determined navigable and part of the lake. Mr. Johnson has submitted a copy of the 1968 State permit for dredging. Is this channel legal? The permit indicates the dredging permit was conditioned on approval of all other riparian oi%T»ers. Up until now, everyone has indicated to me that Mr. Boeye (previous owner of Victoria Grain Property) never agreed to this dredging. The cover letter of the permit application also indicates a requirement of notificaticHi before commencing with dredging. I have no document confirming this inspection or investigation. No Park Dedication Fee was ever collected on the previous subdivision of the property back in November of 1975. Records indicate the Park Dedication Fee was waived until we amended this ordinance. The previous subdivision was up for action the same time the A1 ^Vhitman subdivision pr^osal was up for approval. We waived the fee until we would be able to determine a satisfactory formula. This proposal should, therefore, be assessed a Park Dedication Fee for all three lots that have resulted from the two subdivisions. The raw land value of the i I > \ 1 ■■■) m . Engner Jol Subdivisi< Page 2 total 10 riparian Dedicatio: I am in t PLANNING Discussed PLAY>iING ( Public He: property < about all( Mr. Jolins( a new hou; to tlie ea: addressed wav \ddth noted thai Recommend) 1. F.acli ] 2. Acces; 3. Dedicj abili' right 4. No mo: any fi 5. Septi) 6. Pavmei COUNCIL M Approved of conser Park Dedi lot at th STAFF - S Received by prelim delivered and the C'