Laserfiche WebLink
I <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 />I <br />I <br /> <br />Commission discussed drainage and storm sewer with Mr. Raatikka. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka stated that previously he was considering a 42" pipe and is now <br />looking a~ a 36" pipe and greater ponding area. <br /> <br />Chairman Peterson polled the Commission for their feelings on Commissioner <br />Deemer's suggestion regarding Barium Street and the consensus was to leave it <br />as shown on the plan at this time. <br /> <br />The CommisSioni prepared the following findings of fact: <br /> <br />1. The plan is not in conflict with the Ramsey Comprehensive ?lan, as amended. <br /> <br />2. The plan is designed to form a desirable and unified development within its <br /> own boundaries. <br /> <br />3. The proposed uses will not be detrimental to present and future land uses <br /> in thelsU~rounding area. <br /> <br />4. Any exceptions to the standard requirements of the zoning and subdivision <br /> ordinances are justified by the design of the development. <br /> <br />5. The plan Will not create an excessive burdon on parks, schools, streets <br /> and otherPublic facilities and utilities which serve, or are proposed to <br /> serve, the planned development. <br /> <br />6. The planned development will not have an undue and adverse impact on the <br /> reasonabl~ enjoyment of neighboring property. <br /> <br />Commissioner :Hendriksen referred to Item #3 and stated that it has been brought <br />out in disCusSions that web,are targeting a certain dollar market place and that <br />has the potential of being detrimental to surrounding areas. <br /> <br />Mr. Berg replied that the Comprehensive Plans states we have to target affordable <br />housing. <br /> <br />Mr. Carson stated that the PUD is a first class project and will be compatible <br />with surrounding property. <br /> <br />Mr. Rekuo~i s~ated that the thrust of going from one acre parcels to 70'x80' <br />parcels Ks significant. <br /> <br />Mr. Ralph Hen~rikson - 5460 140th Lane - During discussion of Item #4 in the <br />findings of fact, stated that the residents of Flintwood I are not in favor <br />of tot l~ts i~ the PUD, that they would rather see tot lots eliminated and <br />that additional space used between units. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Consensus is that tot lots will not be required in the PUD. <br /> <br />Commission consensus is that overall density justifies going to smaller lots. <br /> <br />Mr. Dunn stated that some of the lots are within 1000' of shoreline and fall <br />under shoreline jurisdiction. <br /> <br />Mr. ~aatikka stated that the pond to which Mr. Dunn refers~has been deleted <br />by DNR and th~ PUD is 1700' away from the other shoreline in that area. <br /> <br />P & Z/February 7, 1984 <br /> Page 5 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />