Laserfiche WebLink
! <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />City of Ramsey <br />1,5153 NOWTHEN BOULEVARD N.W., RAMSEY, MINNESOTA 55303 · (612) 427-1410 <br /> <br />'1 <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> <br />July 2, 1991 <br /> <br />Mr. Jack Miller <br />4140 Terrace Lane <br />Minnetonka, MN 55343 <br /> <br />RE: Proposed Revision of River Bluffs Subdivision Plat <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Miller: <br /> <br />I sm in receipt of your revised preliminary plat for River Bluffs dated May 22, 1991 <br />which was prepared by McCombs, Frank, Roos Associates. This plat represents <br />the plan which was described to the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 7, <br />1991. As you will recall, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended <br />denial of the plat on a three to two vote. I will allow the minutes of the <br />Commission meeting address the reasons for that vote. My previous review letter <br />of May 7, 1991 was prepared for a plat revision which was withdrawn at the <br />meeting. This letter is therefore intended to describe my comment on the plat that <br />the Planning and Zoning Commission has acted upon. I offer the following <br />comments: <br /> <br />1) <br /> <br />The cul-de-sac provided by this plan does meet miuim, m distance for <br />cul-de-sacs allowed. This addresses one of my concerns in my <br />previous review letter. <br /> <br />2) <br /> <br />Ten of the 24 lots created under this plan have street frontages of less <br />than the 160 foot minimum which has become a standard for P.U.D. <br />zones. In the cases of Lots 14 and 15 of Block 1, this deficiency can be <br />easily overcome by drawing some frontage from Lot 16. However, in <br />the remaining eight lots which have river frontage, this may be a <br />problem which could cause the reduction of one such river lot. <br /> <br />3) <br /> <br />The issue presented in my May 2nd review letter relating to the follow- <br />through on previous planning efforts has only been partially resolved <br />by this plan. The eastern stub of Juniper Drive in Rum Acres Estates <br />was planned to be continued into the subdivision. The current plan <br />does not provide for this continuation. <br /> <br />4) <br /> <br />The dogleg connection of Juniper Ridge Drive with Oneida Street is <br />objectionable. From the standpoint that it creates two tight curves; <br />one being an acute angle and the other being a 90 degree bend in mid- <br /> <br /> <br />