My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
01/03/78
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Planning and Zoning
>
Agendas
>
1970's
>
1978
>
01/03/78
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2025 4:00:49 PM
Creation date
6/9/2004 3:09:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Document Title
Planning & Zoning Agenda
Document Date
01/03/1978
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
TO: <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />RE: <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />Ramsey Planning & Zoning Commissioners <br /> <br /> Phil D. Nereson, City Administrator <br /> <br />Adgenda Critique <br /> <br /> January 3, 1978 <br /> <br />ITEM NO. I CONTINUATION OF BARTHEL'S 2ND ADDITION HEARING. <br /> <br />This will be a continuation of the original hearing convened on <br />December 5, 1977 to hear public input regarding the above referenced <br />plat. Enclosed please find pages 62 through 65 on recreation man- <br />agement taken from the Rum River Management Plan. I also contacted <br />Dale Holmoth Rivers Coordinator from the D.N.R. and posed the question <br />to him regarding the City providing a public access to the river at <br />the point of this plat. He indicated that the Department of Natural <br />Resources frowns on this access, explaining that the D.N.R. and the <br />state law regarding scenic rivers feel it important to control access <br />to specific points. They point out that with the City of Ramsey <br />having the Rum River Central Park, on the north edge of the city, <br />Brookview Park, a park at White Pines as well as access locations on <br />the north edge of Anoka, area residents have ample opportunity for river <br />useage with minimal travel and inconvenience. I believe if the City <br />were to ask for a 10 foot easement we could probably gain approval <br />from the Department of Natural Resources. However, this assumes that <br />the City wants to take the responsibility for an access. It will mean <br />additional policing, maintenance and improvements. The other alter- <br />native is for the land owners in the two plats to hold a private' ease- <br />ment subject to restrictive covenances on each deed. This can be done, <br />however, it would involve extensive legal work particularly for the lots <br />which have already been sold. It is my opinion the second alternative <br />is definitely most desirable since I do not believe the City nor the <br />Department of Natural Resources wishes to accept any additional accesses <br />and responsibilities. If this is the decision of the commission the <br />landowners will be responsible for all legal work and must be informed <br />that no construction of any type including boat ramps will be allowed <br />on the easement. <br /> <br />ITEM 2 MIKE RAUSCH, HOME OCCUPATION <br /> <br />Enclosed please find zoning application request and sketch plan sub- <br />mitted by Mr. Rausch. The intent is to construct a new home which <br />would include a small retail store area for retail sales of books. <br />The sketch plan indicates that adequate parking would be available. <br />The sketch plan indicates two accesses to County Road 56 which under <br />normal circumstances we do not allow. The property in question is <br />zoned R1 Residential. It is my opinion that the City should make <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.