Laserfiche WebLink
-/• <br />a?' <br />MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 2, 1992 <br />CLIFF OTTEN SUBDIVISION - CONT. <br />Cliff Often was present and explained ^e is proposing the <br />rearrangement of the lot lines between Pafs^el A (market property) <br />and Parcel B (residential property), and a subdivision of Parcel <br />B and C as he wishes to sell the parce* with the existing <br />residence. He explained there would be no change in use and the <br />larger parcel is used for nursery stock. He explained the larger <br />parcel currently has two tax identification numbers, so therefore <br />It really is not a creation of a new lot but merely a lot lire <br />rearrangement. He stated that Parcel A (market property) would be <br />reduced from 1.6A acres to 1.5 acres, but actually gains useable <br />that the larger parcel would be legally <br />after final approval. He explained that <br />be 16.4 acres and Pafcel B will be <br />He noted Mabusth supplied him with a copy <br />was unclear as to when he <br />space. Often explained <br />combined Into one par,:.e <br />the larger parcel wil <br />approximately 2.3 acres, <br />of the park dedication ordinance and he <br />would be required to comply. <br />Gerhardson stated this is in a two acre zoning district. <br />Often explained he started the subdivision process between the two <br />larger parcels 18 months ago, but due to an incorrect title <br />opinion, needed to go through the necessary paper work to clear up <br />the documents with regards to Old County Road 6. <br />Gerhardson stated at th <br />to consider. <br />s time he had no options for the Commission <br />Chair Flint felt this was a readjustment of lot lines. <br />Johnston reminded the Commission that park dedication fees have not <br />been paid for any of the land. He noted the intent of the <br />ordinance entitles the City to 8;^ of the value or 8% of the land. <br />He felt that If th»? 6% cash or land was not taken at this point, <br />the chance may not occur again as Parcel C could be developed with <br />one home wit '• t being required to pay park dedication. <br />Often stated that 8% of the valuat <br />rearrangement not worth doing. <br />ion would make the lot line <br />Chair FUnt Informed the Commission that they would need to decide <br />whether this application Is a subdivision or merely a lot line <br />rearrangement. He asked if it were necessary to request an <br />easement for a bike trail along County Road 6. <br />Gerhardson reminded the Commission that property on the north side <br />of County Road 6 is owned by Hennepin Parks, which could be used <br />for tralI.