Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />_Case %6: ~r~.Bradle~ Swenson Re~ardin~ A Sketch Plan For Oakrid~e Construction: <br />Mr. SwenSon s.tated that a previous sketch plan was prepared with a through <br />street and the lots were deficient of the 1 acre minimum. Upon the Commission's <br />recommendation, further studying of the situation has been made and we are now <br />suk~itting a Sketch plan designating a cul-de-sac and each parcel is only 6/100 <br />deficient of I acre. <br /> <br />Commissioner Deemer questioned whether the parcels were, in fact, within 6/100 <br />of an acre oficompliance. Commissioner Deemer stated that he is also concerned <br />with high dengity in a commercial area. <br /> <br />Mr. Berg ~epl~ed that City ordinance allows for it. <br /> <br />Mayor Ga~nec commented that the subject property is commercial/industrial and <br />will gene=atethe best tax base. Mayor Gamec is more concerned with the <br />street alignment in this area than with lot size. <br /> <br />Commissioner iZimmerman stated that this whole commercial area needs some <br />continuous p~anning as far as streets are concerned, especially with sewer <br />and water c~ing to this area. <br /> <br />Mr. schne~le stated that this Ramsey 67 Industrial Park came before Planning <br />and Zoning in 1978 and a variance was granted to do just what is happening now. <br /> <br />Motion by. Commissioner LaDue and seconded by Commissioner Kennen that this <br />sketch plan for Oakridge Construction proceed to the preliminary plat stage. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: <br />and Hen4rikSen. Voting No: <br />CommisSiOner Johnson. <br /> <br />Chairman Peterson, Commissioners Kennen, LaDue <br />Commissioners Zimmerman and Deemer. Absent: <br /> <br />Chairman Pet~rson requested that the minutes reflect that the City Engineer <br />check tO see~ if the City can minimize negative effects of this development <br />on the stkrrO~nding property regarding needed easements and street alignments. <br /> <br />Case %6: S~tch Plan for Sorteber~'s Third Addition; Case Of Mr. A1 Sorteberg: <br /> <br />Mr. $or~eberg was not present. <br /> <br />Mr. Berg presented copies of the sketch plan and stated it was identical to <br />Sorteberg Second Addition. <br /> <br />Motion ib~ .Commissioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner LaDue to approve <br />the sketch plan for Sorteberg's Third Addition and that Mr. Sorteberg <br />proceed to ~he preliminary plat stage. Further, it is recommended that <br />improve~entlof 157th be included in that preliminary plat public hearing <br />notice. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Peterson, Commissioners Deemer, Kennen, <br />Zimmerman, LaDue and Hendriksen. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner <br />Johnson. <br /> <br />COMMISSION INPUT <br /> <br />commiss$oneN Deemer provided Commission members with copies of his written <br />comments to, the Charter Co~ission regarding the charter. <br /> <br />P & Z/March 6, 1984 <br /> <br /> <br />