Laserfiche WebLink
c.A <br />q qs-si6 <br />ZONING FILE NO. 1301 <br />CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION <br />P.O. Box 66 <br />Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 7/21/88 <br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />TO: David & Fredrick White COPIES TO: Marvin G. Lovlein <br />14195 Pauls Drive 6025 Abbott Ave N <br />Rogers, MN 55374 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 <br />TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision <br />----------------------------------------------------------- <br />DATE OF MEETING: 7/18/88 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against <br />Planning Commission recomends the following: <br />Tabled for reasons noted below <br />NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: <br />1. Planning Commission requested that the applicant wcrk 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; i.e. Would it be public or private if i. <br />was a throunh road? Who would build it? Who would pay the costs? <br />Planning Commission was unable to take formal action on your request <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 roadway 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 wil:hout a <br />topographical survey based on the conditions noted above. Staff would <br />suggest a reconfiguratiort of the north boundary line as showr on the <br />attached conceptual map. <br />