My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-22-1986 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
01-22-1986 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2013 12:09:36 PM
Creation date
3/19/2013 12:08:33 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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
PLANNING REPORT <br />TO: <br />northwest associated consultants, inc. <br />Little Canada Mayor and City Council <br />Little Canada Planning Commission <br />FROM: David Licht d9c1.11 <br />DATE: 6 January 1986 <br />RE: Little Canada - Goff Rezoning /Subdivision /PUD <br />FILE NO: 758.09 - 85.34 <br />Q���od�0i <br />JAN 7 1986 <br />CITY OF <br />LITTLE CANADA <br />CASE BACKGROUND <br />Goff Construction is proposing the development of six unit manor home type <br />structures on the vacant land east of the intersection of Arcade and County <br />Road D, north of the NSP power lines and easements. (The property in question <br />does, however, extend to the south border of the NSP easement.) In order to <br />gain a response to this proposal, a rezoning and conditional use permit planned <br />unit development applications have been filed. Should the proposed concept in one <br />form or another gain approval„ a formal subdivision must yet be applied for <br />and processed. <br />CASE ANALYSIS <br />There are two decision- making levels involved in the Goff Construction Company <br />request. The first is a policy oriented issue involving the rezoning and <br />utilization of a planned unit development. As a consequence of the policy <br />nature of the request, the discussion below outlines factors for consideration <br />but makes no formal recommendation on action. <br />The second decision relates to design of the proposed project. The concept <br />which is now being presented is reflective of some of the preliminary comments <br />which our office has provided the applicant in the past. We do, however, <br />have additional concerns and comments which we have outlined in the second part <br />of this case analysis. <br />4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, mn, ste. 200 55416 (6121925 -9420 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.