My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 09/25/2001
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2001
>
Agenda - Council - 09/25/2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 12:27:51 PM
Creation date
9/4/2003 2:57:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
09/25/2001
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
369
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
-28- <br /> <br />explained it was a surprise to many of his colleagues and the City Staff that this area was not in <br />the MUSA. Mr. Peterson stated that the two one-acre lots to the north would not fall into their <br />typical development scheme. The fee owner of the property will retain ownership of them. One <br />issue the Staffhad raised was to provide a street access to the north. Mr. Peterson stated his firm <br />is open to that and to the discussion of where it might go as well. Mr. Peterson explained that the <br />Bartholds are the fee owners of the trapezoidal shaped property to the east, however, they have <br />sold it. He questioned whether it should be included in the plat. <br /> <br />Robert Miller, 15916 St. Francis Boulevard, explained that if the road was cbntinued north as <br />Mr. Peterson mentioned by the two one-acre lots, this would provide accessm'..Mr. Miller's <br />property. Mr. Miller stated that if this request is approved, there should be'an ~ak~ent that <br />would also provide him access to the back of his property without, being landlocked;',:I~e stated <br />he is not opposed to developing the land into a neighborhood. He only sought to be s=Ure the <br />back of his land doesn't become landlocked. Mr. Miller commented he would disapprove df., <br />another driveway coming into T.H. #47. .. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt clarified whether 159~h Lane ends at Mr. M~t,ler'sproperty. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller stated it does not. He added that there is a five-acr~ Sqdare which is the property of <br />the neighbor behind him. The previous owners of the neighbors' property had the easement put <br /> <br />Christian Peterson, 5815 158 m Avenue, Ramsey~ pointed'°ut his' property on the upper northwest <br />comer on the map. He is adjacent to this development. He clarified that the developer intends to <br />create two one-acre lots. ' - '~ ' 'i :' -. <br /> <br />Debra Landwehr, 582i 158th Avenue, R. amsey, stated'she is opposed to the development. Three <br />years ago, the development was going'to beginand the:dirt and sand has been blowing into the <br />neighboring properties ever since~-There haSbeenn6ise as early as 5:00 a.m. She said everyone <br />voiced their opinion that they did not want the development ro come in. This ten acres was not <br />within the MUSA. She als0 mentioned the developers didn't keep the green space as they had <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt explained that the cul-de-sac would affect the property owner adjacent to her <br />and Only the southeast comer of her property abuts the development. He further explained that <br />she has neighbors that own t..5 to 2 acres next to her. <br /> <br />Ms. Landwehr questioned the need for the easement. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt replied it was requested by other landowners. <br /> <br />Ms. Landwehr stated she was also concerned with the amount of traffic this development would <br />generate. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/September 10, 2001 <br /> Page 10 of 24 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.