Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MAY 23, 2001 <br />ROAD - It was noted that the property division had been previously approved by <br />RICHTT the Council. However, given that the division had not been recorded at <br />PROPERTY Ramsey County within 6 months of approval, the approval had lapsed. <br />DIVISION 'the Planning Commission has recommended re-approval of the property <br />division subject to the same conditions as previously imposed. <br />Fahey asked if there was anyone from the general public present wishing to <br />comment ou this matter. <br />Tom Koycraft, 2910 Arcade Street, noted that since the property division was <br />previously approved, the City reviewed with property owners in the area a <br />proposed thoroughfare plan. He noted that these property owners opposed the <br />thoroughfare plan that was presented which would bring in road access from <br />Arcade Street. <br />Fahey pointed out that Mr. Richie is proposing to create a new lot abutting <br />L.aBore Road. Fahey agreed that at the time the proposed thoroughfare plan <br />was presented, property owners felt it was too expensive to develop as shown <br />and it was noted that there are many variables and unknowns with regard to <br />future development of this area. <br />There was no one else from the general public wishing to comment on this <br />matter. <br />Upon motion by Montour, seconded by Scalze, the public hearing was closed. <br />Mrs Scalze introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RE.SOL U'TION NO. 2001-5-I07 - APPRO DING THE DIVISION OF 2966 <br />La73ORE RDAD INTO PA12CE7_S 1, 2, AND 3 WITH PARCEL 1 TO RE <br />COM137NED WITH 2940 Lrz13ORE ROAD AS RED VESTED 13Y MR. <br />WILT IAM RICHIE SUI3.IECT MR. RICHIE ENTERING INTO A <br />COVENANT AGREEMENT THAT WOULD PRECLUDE ANY <br />ADDI1'IONAI. DEVELOPMENT OF HIS PROPERTY WITHOUT A <br />ROAD IMPRO vEMEN1; AND SU13.IECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE <br />RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CI7`Y PLANNER AND THE PLANNING <br />COMMISSION, AND WITH 'L'HE INDICATION THAT THIS PROPERTY <br />DIVISION IS IN NO WAY AN INDICATION OF HOW FUTURE <br />DEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR ON TIIE REMAINING RICHIE <br />PROPERTY <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Fahey. <br />Ayes (5) Scalze, Fahey, LaValle, Montour, Anderson. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />