Laserfiche WebLink
BABCOCK, LOCHER, NEILSON & MANNELLA <br />ATTORNEYS AT LAW <br />118 EAST MAIN STREET <br />ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 <br />EDMUND P. BABCOCK <br />LANDOL J. LOCHER <br />JAMES M. NEILSON <br />FELIX A. MANNELLA <br />JOHN R. SPEAKMAN <br />ROBERT F. MANNELLA <br />STEPHEN M. HALSEY <br />WILLIAM D. SCHUTTER <br />June 8, 1979 <br />Marilyn Anderson, Deputy Clerk <br />City of Lino Lakes <br />1189 Main Street <br />Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 <br />TEL: (612) 421-5151 <br />NORTHTOWN OFFICE <br />NORTHTOWN CENTER <br />117 NORTHTOWN DRIVE <br />BLAINE, MN. 55434 <br />TEL: (612) 786-0250 <br />I enclose, herewith, a copy of your letter of June 5, 1979, for <br />reference. Iwill endeavor to answer the questions in the order <br />that they were presented in your letter. <br />I definitely feel that the City Council can, if reasonable, for <br />safety and the protection of the people who will be living in the <br />plat, require anyone to provide adequate ingress and egress. In <br />this instance, if such adequate access cannot be obtained other <br />than going through the adjoining plat, I do not believe that the <br />City Council can force purchase of the property by the platting <br />developer; however, the City could construct a street and handle it <br />as a special assessment, following the usual requirements in Minnesota <br />Statutes, Chapter 429. <br />Obviously, the best and cheapest solution is for Mr. Rehbein to nego- <br />tiate with Mr. Dobiesand resolve the matter, if the Planning and <br />Zoning feels that this is the best location for the roadway. <br />As to the question of hearings on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan <br />Amendment, I enclose, herewith, a copy of Minnesota Statute Chapter <br />473.851 through Chapter 473.872, for reference. The pertinent <br />section is after 473.864, Subdivision 2, which I have underlined. <br />Also enclosed is a copy of Minnesota Statutes 462.355, and I have <br />underlined the pertinent portions of Subdivision 2, thereof. <br />Although I enclose the pertinent Statutes merely for reference, my <br />conclusion is that the planning agency must hold at least one public <br />hearing (_more than one public hearing may be held, if desired), and a <br />notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published <br />once in the official newspaper at least ten days before the day of the <br />hearing. I definitely do not believe that there must be a separate <br />hearing held on each item of change, as long as the items proposed for <br />change are presented at the first hearing or only hearing which is held. <br />