My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/10/2002
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
2002
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/10/2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2025 9:53:35 AM
Creation date
7/8/2003 11:17:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
01/10/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
124
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
will be entering the development and 61 vehicles will be leaving the development. Based on their <br />analysis ten percent of the residents from "The Ponds" development would use CSAH #5, 10 <br />percent would use T.H. #47 to the north, 10 percent would use Dyspros!um Street, and the <br />:-'.~:o. iz~,~-~g ¢50 percent would go south on T.H.//47. The proposed conditions at all three locations <br />'...-'outd be an acceptable level of service. Dysprosium would have an additional 30 to 35 trips. <br />during the peak periods and Iodine Street would have an increase of five to ten trips during the <br />peak periods. Mr. Corkle recommended that a westbound left turn lane and an eastbound turn <br />lane be provided along CSAH #5 into the development. <br /> <br />Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, stated that the property is currently zoned commercial along <br />CSAIt. //5, and the westerly portion of the property is zoned single family. The City's most <br />recent dra~ of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the site as m/xed use. The plan being presented <br />to the Commission was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and reflects the "blue print" <br />the City has for the site. Mr. Black also noted that he did meet with the. adjacent neighborhood to <br />discuss the development. The key points that were taken from the meeting were that the area is <br />unique and they .don't want to lose that, they like the linear trails across the property that are <br />currently heavily used. He explained to the residents that the trail system is a big element of their <br />plan and they would like to expand on it, as well as keeping the nature view of the existing <br />wetland. Mr. Black stated that the majority of the neighbors understood that development would <br />occur some day on the property and they are not against the development, but they do want to <br />make sure that it is done right. They would like to see as many trees saved as possible. He did <br />'discuss the possibility of hiring a tree spade and transplanting as many pine trees to the outer edge <br />of the development. On the upper level of the development most of the trees would have to be <br />removed in order to construct the road way and put in City services. The' neighbors expressed a <br />strong desire to control tree removal around the perimeter, which he has pledged to do. Once <br />they have cleared the right of way for road construction they will take another look at tree <br />preservation. The other area of concern had to do with the increase in traffic. Mr. Black <br />expIained that there would only be one connection to the existing neighborhood to the north. The <br />other main area of concern had to do with the retention ponds. They are currently proposing <br />retention ponds on the site that are required by the water shed district. Those ponds are there to <br />handle run-off from the impervious surfaces. Some of the ponds will be dry ponds and some will <br />be wet ponds. The other area of concern had to 'do with the extension of 145~ Court. He <br />explained that the existing neighbors are very concerned with keeping the natural aesthetics. Mr. <br />Black has indicated to those neighbors that those seven lots would be custom lots,, which means <br />that they will be left. in their natural state and then the developer will decide how to develop the <br />site once they have a buyer. <br /> <br />Tom Chesness, 572I 145th Court, Ramsey, stated that he was told that the land across from his <br />home could not be developed because there was not enough high land and now they are being <br />told that it will be developed on. He personally did not think the site was buildable. <br /> <br />Commissioner SWeet inquired as to why Mr. Chesness did not think the land was buildable <br /> <br />Mr. Chesness replied because it is not a big enough piece of property. He stated that if he would <br />have known that the lot was buildable, he would not have built his home in the location that it is <br /> <br />-32- <br /> <br />Planning Commission/June 5, 2001 <br /> Page 10 of 28 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.