03/16/92 Special - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~~ ii , CASE #2: REVIEW' ~EVISED SKETCti PLAN FOR FLEISCHER'S 2ND ADDITION; CASE OF JACK MENKVELD, ~ ORTIt SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik Background On June 14, 9'.98,, the City of Ramsey received an application for a subdivision to be named Fleischer's 2n t Addition. On July 3, 19~0;ithe Planmng and Zomng Comrmssmn rewewed the sketch plan for Flmscher s 2nd Addition:.~ A~ that time, the Commission recommended revisions to the sketch plan to provide for future acc~ss~o~ the property to the north and to realign the accesses onto Nowthen Blvd. N.W. so they woul~ li¢j¢ up with the accesses from Wood Pond Hills to the west onto Nowthen Blvd. r ;! .... On February ¢ 1,~1992, the C~ty recmved a remsed sketch plan subrmtted by Jack Menkveld of North Sub~b[tm ~evelopment Company. Mr. Menkveld and Doloras Fleischer have provided written verift~atl6n that Mr. Menkveld will be assuming the development of Fleischer's 2nd Addition. i On March 2, i9 '.~. i the Commission reviewed the revised sketch plan which aid provide for future access to the l~r6perty to the north and the accesses onto Nowthen Blvd. did align with accesses from Wood:Fond !Hitls onto Nowthen Blvd. N.W. However, the plat showed numerous parcels having direct ~c~s onto the collector street in the plat. The developer was advised to revise the sketch plan tO[climate direct accesses onto the collector street. On March 12¢ 1992, the City received a revised sketch plan for Fleischer's 2nd Addition. Observatio~s: The revised: sgetCh plan dated March 12, 1992, eliminates the accesses onto the collector street in the plat. The ~e~¢on has resulted in reducing the number of proposed lots from 92 to 87. It does appear that aR ofii .the lots now meet the mirtimum lot width at the street, however, some of them do narrow subSt~.(' ri~y from the building setback line to the rear property line. These configurations, in addition to ~.e4C~-ed setbacks (especially on comer lots) could substantially restrict the placement and type of'h~ras~ that could be constructed on the lots. At this time, Staff cannot say for sure how many !01cs ~e hampered by the narrow configxtrations. Another concern is the proposed layout for Lot Block 6. As you will note, the lot is proposed to access onto a cul-de-sac street via a driveWa :tween Lots 3 and 4. In the interest of publishing this agenda in a timely manner, this case is:g ;iforward without a detailed report of just how many lots are restricted by the narrow confi idons. However, additional information will be available from Staff at the meeting on ~ rdh: 16. You will also notb that the developer has proposed a park lot adjacent to Oudot A. The plat has not yet been pres :n~ to the Park Commission, however, they will be reviewing the park dedication requirements m0' ~.r, to the preliminary plat public hearing. In add/don t~i i~e revised sketch plan received on March 12, 1992, a copy of the sketch plan reviewed on M '.~h 2nd is enclosed for your information and compahson purposes. I am also enclosing the.sitk location map and the Citv Staff review letter pertainin~ to the oriCnal sketch plan. '7