My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/08/76
10.0.0.9
>
City Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970's
>
1976
>
11/08/76
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2009 12:10:31 AM
Creation date
10/14/2003 1:36:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
-2- <br /> <br />Name <br /> <br />Mrs. Schumache r <br /> <br />P[an.ning Director <br /> <br />Mr. Schmidt <br />Mr. Gabiou <br /> <br />James Warlng, P[arming <br />Director o[ Dakota County <br /> <br />Mr. Solac <br /> <br />Mrs. Pinke <br /> <br />Commiss ioner Scul[y, <br />Dakota County <br /> <br />Mr. Bremer <br /> <br />Planning Director <br /> <br />Comment <br />There are no plans a[ this [[me to extend 4th <br />Street west to the City limits. <br />How does this proposal fit in with the <br />Comprehensive Plan? The land to the east of <br />this property lends itself to single family <br />development and if the mobile home park is <br />constructed as proposed, if would reduce the <br />value of the property for such development. <br />The Comprehensive Plan does not designate <br />areas on the map that are suitable for multiple <br />family housingJ The written portion of the <br />Comprehensive Plan does list criteria for <br />multiple family housing and the Planning <br />Commission is currently studying whether or <br />not they feel that criteria is applicable to the <br />Espeseth property. <br />A statement was made indicating that he was <br />against the proposed project. <br />Another statement was made in his opposition <br />to the proposal, plus an indication that there <br />was a covenant limiting development to an R~ 1 <br />classification with 600 feet of his property. <br />Mr. Waring presented a statement in opposition <br />to the project which represented the feelings <br />of the County Board, however, the Board has <br />not taken any official action on this statement <br />at this time. <br />Because this proposal is in a valley, screening <br />around the periphery would be difficult and <br />meaningless in terms of protecting surrounding <br />property ow-ne r s. <br />The people in the area are concerned about <br />traffic generated, from this project and the <br />affect it would have on the intersection of <br />55 and Pleasant Drive. <br />The County bought 50 acres for future expansion, <br />but also to protect them from surl:ounding <br />development. With this development, Mr. <br />Scully indicated that perhaps the County <br />should have acquired more property. <br />The additional development may create the <br />need for improvements to Feathers[one and <br />Jacob Ave. and who will be paying for these <br />improvements ? <br />This proposal does not involve any improvements <br />on either Featherstone or Jacob Ave. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.