07/10/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I Mr. Paatikka referred to a letter dated June 7 from the City of Elk River and stated that Elk River expects Ramsey to participate in the oost of renovating Jarvis due to the increase in traffic; Elk River also noted that property adjacent to the Northfork prc~ect is zoned industrial. Mr. Gait stated that the do have some with developers concern adjacent property being industrial but it should not impact Phase 1 of the Northfork develoi~ent. With respect to the anticipated need to renovate Jarvis, Elk River's industrial zone might influence the construction of Jarvis which in t~lrn impacts the cost of renovation. Mr. Gait stated that he doesn't think the North Fork partnership is adverse to participating in the Cost of renovating Jarvis providing it is a fair share as it relates to the benefit and need for that road -- residential versus industrial. Gouncilmember (]ox referred again to the subject of one access road into the development and the potential hazards created by that in times of ~mergency. Mr. Gait stated that there is an access easement proposed through Out_lot C commencing at the cul-de-sac of White Tail Trail and proceeding south to Hwy. #10; it will not be a fully improved road but it will be kept open year around for marketing purposes; developers would be agreeable to having this access also available in ~aergency situations. Gouncil Consensus is that the unimproved roadway extending south from the White Tail Trail cul-de-sac will be written into the develol~ent agreement as an emergency access. (buncil proceeded to discuss the proposed findings of fact. Mayor Heitman expressed sc~e Concern with the language 'any exceptions' contained in Item #18. Mr. Goodrich stated that he believes the only exceptions that language would refer to is that s~me of the lots are not 2-1/2 acres in size. Mayor Heitman irguired if the 'any exceptions' language gives a license to create exceptions in the future. I I Mr. Goodrich replied that the Findings of Fact does not grant anything; it says that the City has looked at the plat, recognized the variances and stated that those variances are acceptable. Ordinance requires a finding that says any exceptions are justified by design of develolm~nt. Any variance from the plat approved by Q)uncil at this time, would have to come before Gouncil for approval. Oouncil proccc~d to discuss the variance to street names and suffixes. Mr. Gait reported that Planning and Zoning has no objection to the variance from street names and suffixes if the names and nm~ering is acceptable with the 911 headquarters. Oouncil comus is that the developer should also seek approval from the June 11, 1985 Page 7 of 14