Agenda - Council - 03/12/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I C~,,,~,i .... loner Hendriksen stated that his reason for abstainina on the previous motion was the fact that he was not present for the entire public hearing. £]~Jaj. rman Peterson infoz~ted Ms. Dickman ti~at the motion to disapprove is only a reco~r~mendation to Council and the case will go before Council on ]~rch 27, 1984. He also inforr, ed Ms. Dickman that the minutes from tonight's meeting will he fo~'arded to Council. _C~se__#A: .E??~?st To Subdivide B~ Metes knd Bounds; Case Of M~r. Gary_ novel: Mr. novel was present. ~%airman Peterson stated that Staff is concerned that if for some reason, at some point in time, ~. Dqvel's plans to purchase the second 10 acre parcel on a contract for deed fall through, the City will be left with a landlocked piece of property. T?,e proposed agreement specifics that if the applicant fails to purchase that 10 acre parcel, he will plat the entire parcel according to subdivision code of Ramsey and provide access to that property. Co~r~r, ission consensus is that Y~. novel should incorporate the west 33' of the front parcel as part of the contract for deed parcel. Co:~-unission consensus is to delete Item #2 from the development contract. Motion by COr~T, issioner Deemer and seconded by Cor:~issioner Zi~u~erm. an to recommend approval of a subdivision of ten acres in the N~E¼ of the LA¢¼ of Section 8, To,~u~ship 32, Range 25, City of Ramsey, Anoka County, Minnesota, based on the am, ended development contract and contingent upon the applicant entering into a development agreement with the City of Ram~ey. Hotion carried. Vot'ing Yes: Chairman Peterson, Commissioners Deemer, Kennen, Zirmnerman, !~Due and Hendriksen. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Johnson. 7 Case Raudio: Sketch Plan; Case Of ~. Arthur ?~. }~'odio was present. ~,e sketch plan is for a portion of property adjacent to the Rum River and just east of T.H. ~47. River lots would be approximately 90' wide and 200' in depth, meeting DNR requirements. Off-river lots would be approximately 90'x135'. T%e roadway may vary slightly than what is sho~nq in the configuration. 1~%ere is a lot of wooded property and every effort will be made to make it an aesthetic development as possible. One-htnndred and fifteen single family dwellings are planned. Cq]air~n Peterson inquired as to how much land is involved; it appears that not all of the property is platted on the sketch plan? F~. Raudio replied that some of the land is subject to DNR consideration regarding adding fill to make it buildable. Discussion ensued regarding the MSA street through the project and at what point i% will enter H~,7. 47. P & Z/March 6, 1984 Page 7 of 10