Laserfiche WebLink
Motion by Commissioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner Holland to recommend that City <br />Council grant preliminary plat approval to Fox Knoll based on discussion and contingent upon <br />compliance with City Staff review letter dated March 29, 1995, noting that if the developer and Mr. <br />Kurak come to an agreement regarding additional land to be brought into the plat, then the amended <br />plat should be brought to the Planning Commission for informational purposes. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners Deemer, Holland, <br />Hendriksen, LaDue, Terry, and Thorud. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Steve Croteau, 5939 151st Lane NW - advised that his property abuts the north portion of this plat, <br />and he will be directly impacted by the installation of municipal water. He stated he opposes this <br />development, adding that he does not want water to come up 151st Lane. He commented that it is <br />economically cheaper to bring the water in on the north side of the school property in terms of <br />restoration. <br /> <br />John Haubrich, 5954 151st Lane NW - stated he owns the largest frontage on 151st Lane. As he <br />has 18 trees in the area which will be trenched for sewer and water, he expressed concern about <br />damage to those trees. He also indicated there is a gas line in that area. He agreed that it would be <br />cheaper to put in the sewer and water on the north side of the school property. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski stated that there are only two trees involved, but there is no intention to impact <br />those. He suggested possibly skirting around them and digging up part of the street in this area. <br /> <br />Mr. Haubrich inquired whether there would be compensation for the trees if damaged. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski replied that there would not be compensation since the trees are in the boulevard. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer commented that home insurance rates will be cheaper with city water <br />nearby. <br /> <br />Case #5: Request for Sketch Plan Review of Business Park 95, a Minor <br /> Subdivision; Case of City of Ramsey <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik stated that the City of Ramsey recently entered into a purchase <br />agreement for property in the Industrial District and proposes to plat 3 lots from that property, in <br />conjunction with an adjacent parcel previously acquired, to accommodate incoming industrial <br />developments. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer inquired why the City is exempt from park dedication. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik replied that the City is the residents; we get our revenue from their property taxes and <br />because this is a City plat, we should keep the cost to the residents at a minimum. In addition, to <br />charge ourselves park dedication would be just transferring the money from "one pocket to <br />another" so to speak. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer stated that there will be a gain to the Economic Development Authority <br />(EDA) and a portion of that money should go to the parks; any other developer platting this would <br />have to pay park dedication. <br /> <br />Ms. Frolik responded that the EDA derives its revenue source from the City or the residents, and <br />so the same explanation applies. In addition, the EDA gains are used to expand our commercial <br />base which benefits the residents more than switching funds from one pocket to another to say we <br />paid park dedication. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/April 4, 1995 <br /> Page 7 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />