03/05/91 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

On November!iS, 1990, the Park and Recreation Commission met to review the revised sketch plan of Faye Addition ~lated November 16, 1990. They denied park dedication as proposed in the revised sketch planlrecommended that the developer research alternative trail alignments that would minimize strefl crossings. On Decembcr~'.13, 11990, the Park and Recreation Commission met to review an alternative trail alignment thropgh Faye Addition as proposed by the developer. The trail was proposed to run east west through cente? of the plat. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended denial of the proposed ahgnrnent. On January 10, 1991, the Park and Recreation Commission met to review another proposed alignment for ~e t~ail through Faye Addition. The alignment was proposed to be located between the commerci~ and residential development within the plat, connecting from a proposed park in the eastern portioh of[the plat to the Anoka County Park to the west. The Park and Recreation Commission r.~commended approval of the proposed alignment contingent upon there not being a successful trad~ of land between Anoka County and the developer and Anoka County not acquiring the Kelly property. If the land trade and acquisition of Kelly property are successful, then the trail alignment thr~ugl/Faye Addition would require another review by the Park and Recreation Commission, On January 15, 1991, the City of Ramsey received the developers request for preliminary plat approval. On February 2~, 19,91, the City of Ramsey received a response to the proposed preliminary plat of Faye Additional from Metro Council as it relates to the Mississippi River Critical Area Interim Development Regulations. Metro Council listed the following concerns: 1) Not all of the subject property is within the 1990 Urban Area; 2) A vegetation plan is required to show how vegetation will be protected; :3) The proposed trail alignment is away from the Mississippi River and eliminates an)/ivis~.al or physical access to the river;, 4) Development plans may conflict with possible future airport safety zoning; 5) Phasing plan for the development should take into consideration ~hat the City is under a 500 REC limit until Anoka wastewater treatment plant is phased out. ~jspoke with Larry Hartman of EQB on February 26, t991 and he indicated that the City of Rams0y could be expecting a written response from that agency itemizing the same concerns as M,~trol Council had. I spoke with Rand Klugel at Metro Council on February 28, 1991, and he i~dic~ted to me that the procedure now to follow is one of the City and the developer submitting a w!Stter~ response, and supporting documentation where applicable, to Metro Council's list of concernS. Rand did note that Anoka County is the implementing agency with respect to the regional trail sjstern and if they are acceptable to the northerly trail alignment, then Metro Council would not obj~t to it either. Upon receipt of that written response, Metro Council could issue a favorable review of the plat. The response would include: that final plat recording is contingent upon Phase/! Of th~. MUSA expansion, a vegetation protection plan would indicate that Outlot E is a scenic easontent for preservation of vegetation, a final proposal for park dedication and trail alignment con~stedt with Anoka County's decisions, explanation that the area possibly affected by airport safety Zonir~g has been planned in a way to accommodate either single family or multi- family development, a preliminary phasing plan that is in accordance with Ramsey's 500 REC limit. At the date of this writing, Ramsey has still not received any word from the Anoka County Parks and Recreation Department and Mn/DOT.