Agenda - Council - 02/13/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I ! I I I Motion by Councilmember AnderSon, seconded by Councilmember Hendriksen, preliminary plat approval to Northfork - St. Andrews Addition contingent upon compliance with City staff review letter dated December 21, 2000. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Anderson, and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. Case #7: Request to Rezone Certain Properties from R-1 Rural Urban Residential;' .'"~ ~"~ Case of Dave and Betty Phelk{~. ::~;~,'~.~, Community Development Director Frolik stated that David3~Betty Pe~ke plat four metes and bounds parcels into two single homestead served with private well and septic are currently zoned R-1 Rural Residential. In order R-1 Urban Residential· The subject properties ar6 Comprehensive Plan amendment initiated by Ramsey in 1993 in 1995 placed the subject property in the Metropolitan residential development with urban seryices. The adjacent parcels south are also in the MUSA. The sewered lots created when Comprehensive Plan targets applicant has provided a single family urban lots (The existing rezoning would be based on the property with single-famil, y residential the current regu~at~0h~ ~f~the R-1 1 reviewed the;reZOmng requ~gt at their during thepUb'lic hearing. Oti~e a comvrehen, conforrh:?.th~ land use reqUiSitions in acc, to R-1 are requesting to residential lots, and an existing the MUSA, but must be zoned acres in size. The by the Met CoUncil Area (MUSA) for west, and lots and The current services. The the property into two the plat). Approval of the intent to develop the plan of Pehlke Estates meets District. The Planning Commission meeting. There was no citizen input been adopted or amended, cities must · .... : ........ ~,~ the plan· The property has' been in the MUSA':siriCe,;:ii?95 an~!'Ci~¥;~a~f.~!~,d ,t,.~!'~?f~nning COmmission recommended approval of rezoning the Pi~i~'erty f~6~ R~I' :R~i'~i~i'~tial to R- 1 Urban Residential ~¢~;'?~'~ei,lmember A~i'~son requested clarification over what the concerns were that were addresse~. ~unng the Pla~ng~ms~on meeting pe~aining to trees ~d drainage. City ~nginek'Jankowsh~f~Pi~ined that the issue had to do wi~ Ci~ staff re uestin that the drainage and ~¢~,~ easement be widened to 20 feet rather th~ five feet to acco~odate drainage for t~¥adjacent yacht prope~y when it is developed. ~e concern of the Pe~kes is that if they co~ct the drainage pipe under thek prope~ their will be several large white pine '~;:~?~f(,.,~:~[ees imoacte~',;? ' 5566 152"~ Avenue, Ramsey,.replied that she is generally opposed to the 20 foot easment. She explained that in 1994 Ramsey Meadows second addition was pla~ed to the south ottheir prope~y and outlot A was created because the lot was not large enough for a house to be City Council/January 23, 2001 Page 17 of 30 -1il-