Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Oily of Ramsey <br /> <br />15153[NOWTHEN BOULEVARDN.W.,RAMSEY, MINNESOfA55303 - (612) 427-1410 <br /> <br />November;5, 1992 <br /> <br />Mr. John Peterson <br />Good Yalu~ Homes <br />1416 93rd Lane N.E. <br />Btainer, Mb4 55434 <br /> <br />Re: Final Plat Review: Chestnut Hill 3rd Addition <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Peterson: <br /> <br />We are in receipt of vour proposed final plat for Chestnut Hill 3rd Addition <br />consisting i:of Sheet 2 of 2 di'awn by Churner Land Surveyors, inc. dated received <br />by the City~ on October 23, 1992. We offer the following comments: <br /> <br />General: The property is zoned R-1 Urban Residential and is proposed to <br />be ~ubdivided into 21 lots. The proposed development is the third phase of <br />Chestnut Hill Addition, for which the phasing plan was approved by the <br />City Council on June 12. 1990. <br /> <br />~ All of the lots in the .3rd Add/don meet the 10.800 square foot <br />mi~mum lot area requirement for the R-1 Urban Residential District. <br /> <br />Lot Dimensions: The minimum fronra,,~ in the urban district is 80 feet or <br />90 ~eet on comer lots. A!! lots in me plat m~t me minimum lot dimensions <br />a: r. rhe build/n_o_ setback line with the exception of Lot 1 of Block 3. This <br />aenmencv can overcome by revising the common bounda.nes of adjacem <br />Lois" and :. <br /> <br />Au!~ust 5. !992 was reviewe~ Ux. City Staff who insu-ucted your sm"vevor <br />tha~-compiiance wire the minim~ 73 foot shoreline requirement was hot <br />reel for severn lots in Block 3. Your surveyor responded bv submitting <br />m~isions contained in the exisnnr plat. After a conversation with M.r. Tom <br />Ho,vey of me Der~an:men: of Natm-al Resources (DNR), it was determined <br />tha.~ an average 75 foot shoreline for the riparian lots would fulfill the intent <br />of ihe minimum shoreline requn-emem, since its pu~ose was to control <br />density along protected shorelines, in light of this. it is apparem that the <br />original configuration of Block 3 is a superior tot iavout since it eliminates <br />me need to se: muinr)ie rem- lot iine irons which could uhimateiv iead to <br />confusion over Jot boundaries. Thus i; is $.'2~¢£s recommendauon mat the <br /> <br />!nfo m~ final <br /> <br /> <br />