My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 03/07/1995
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
1995
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 03/07/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/20/2025 2:51:28 PM
Creation date
7/9/2003 11:40:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
03/07/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
Motion by Commissioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner Hendriksen to direct Staff to <br />draft an ordinance to change the subdivision sketch plan procedure so that it goes to the Parks & <br />Recreation Commission prior to the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Commissioner Deemer stressed that the Planning Commission needs to know <br />where the park is going to be. Commissioner Hendriksen agreed to the importance of knowing <br />whether park dedication is going to be satisfied with cash or whatever, and the Parks & Recreation <br />Commission should make that determination prior to the Planning Commission's consideration of <br />the sketch plan. Mr. Jankowski stated that it is Staff's practice, when there is any significant <br />change, to bring it back for the Planning Commission's review. Several Commissioners disagreed <br />that this is present practice. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners Deemer, Hendriksen, <br />Holland, LaDue, and Terry. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Thorud. <br /> <br />Case #2: Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Foster Care Group Home; <br /> Case of Patrick McLafferty <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Hendriksen and seconded by Commissioner Holland to table discussion <br />of this case until the completion of the public hearing. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Commissioner Deemer directed Staff to provide a complete copy of Minnesota <br />Statute 462.357 for review of the case. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners Hendriksen, Holland, <br />Deemer, LaDue, and Terry. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Thorud. <br /> <br />Case #3: Request for Sketch Plan Review of Alpine First Addition; Case of <br /> City of Ramsey <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski stated that pursuant to an agreement with the City, Waste Management of <br />Minnesota, Inc. has deeded some 112 acres to the City, and the City is now proposing to plat the <br />property. Mr. Jankowski explained that the two outlots on the north side of 153rd will be retained <br />by the City for future development, Lots 1 and 2 will be retained for park development, and Lot 3 <br />must be deeded back to Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc. to fulfill their obligation to provide <br />a 300 foot wide buffer between the toe of the slope and Ramsey's property. He noted that City <br />Staff recommends that this lot be designated as an outlot because it has no public access and it <br />should be clearly identified that it is not considered buildable. He stated that the 100 foot wide <br />utility easement along the west boundary of the property is intended to facilitate Anoka Municipal <br />Utility's construction of transmission lines. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer inquired as to the origin of the name. Since the area is not characteristic of <br />alpine, he suggested a better name would be appropriate. <br /> <br />Chairperson Bawden inquired as to the purpose in platting this. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski replied that the County will not accept transfer without a plat. He again noted that <br />it is intended that a substantial portion of Lots 1 and 2 will be dedicated for a park. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer noted that when the power line installation was approved, it was assumed <br />that they would be far away from residential property and therefore wooden poles were acceptable. <br />However, now that they will be adjacent to a residential area, he suggested City Council should <br />consider installation of cement poles. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/March 7, 1995 <br /> Page 4 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.