Agenda - Council - 01/25/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

William Smith, t~o Associate, stated he is a consultant hired by BRW to work on Ramsey's Transportation Pl//m as well as Anoka County's=. He explained he will be looking at all modes of n'avel such as automobile, pedestrian, and bteycl¢. He depicted critical issues such as Highway 10, access onto I-l/~ghway 10, frontage road, railroad crossing, bridge, east-west routes, etc. He explained hc w/Il ./ds° review previous studies done and work with the Planning Commission. Commissioner H~ndriksen inquired Wtiether Mr. Smith was aware of the dispute regarding the actual curt'cut Tra~asponation Plan, and he explained how the Count), has proceeded by accepting an erroneous map; Mr. Smith stated tie would certainly address that in his stud),, and he explained that there will be an opportunity for th~ public to review as well. Mr. Smith suggested a subcommittee of the Commission to work with on ~ regular basis, and Chairperson Bawden and Commissioners Deemer and Holland agreed to be contact persons for the consultants to wok with outside of Commission meetings. Case #3: Reguest for Preliminary Plat Approval o1' Chestnut Ridge; Case john Peterson, Good Value Homes It was the consensus of the planning and Zoning Commission to table this case until the January meeting. Case #4: Re~,iew Proposed Ordinance to Amend Sign Regulations It was the consensus of the Planning and Zoning Commission to table this case until the January meeting. ,.//Case #5: Discussion for Proposal Regarding To3~,nhouses of Rum River Hills; Catse of Wilbur Dom Zon,!ng Administr~ator Frolik stated that on April 6, 1993 the Commission reviewed a sketch plan for Townhouses ~_f Rum River Hills" which proposed to replat Lot 1, Block 2 and Ouflot C, Rum River Hills, into t2 townhouse'lots to be served by individual on-site septic systems and wells. She explained thai based on Staff and Metropolitan Council's concerns, the Planni.ng and Zoning Commission recdmmended approval of the sketch plan with seven contingencies which are outlined in the ag~da. Wilbur Dom, developer, stated that they will not be able to comply with all seven contingencies. He explained that he has been unable to obtain any response from the Metropolitan Council, which is required in ite~ #3 and #7, and he would like to proceed to City Council with or without the approval from the .Commission. Commissioner H~ndriksen inquired whether thc only limitation was the sewer, and Mr. Dom stated that was cori'ect. Commissioner De~mer stated he saw no justification for changing the contingencies, and/v'n'. Dom suggested that theitwo items be expressed as a concern of the Commission's in which they would like City Council ~ address Metropolitan Council for a response. Motion by Comniissioner La.Due and seconded by Commissioner Hendriksen to confirm their previous recomm~indafion subject to seven contingencies, modifying #3 and #7 as concerns of the P&Z Commission !rather than requirements or prerequisites. planning and Zoning Commission/December 7, 1993 Page 7 of 8 /7/