Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br />I <br />I, <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />adopting the proposed resolution. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissio~er De~mer and seconded by Cc~missioner Rendriksen to <br />recommend City Council approve Mr. Lauren Wetterlind's request for a Yariance <br />to the platting ordinance for a metes and b~unds subdivision of his property <br />at 8154 161st Avenue North into 3 lots -- 5-1/2 acres, 2-1/2 acres and 2 <br />acres. Further, the split will be from the centerline of the cul-de-sac on <br />159th Lane; Planning and Zoning recommends a 33' easement be acquired on each <br />side of that line for future extension of 159th Lane; the lot situated north <br />of the split line will be 2-1/2 acres in size; Planning and Zoning recommends <br />a variance be granted to the minim~ street frontage ordinance for that 2-1/2 <br />acre lot to the north~ Planning and Zoning recommends a variance be granted to <br />the rural residential 10 acre density requirement on the 2-1/2 acre and 2 acre <br />lot; Planning and Zoning recommends a variance be granted to the 2-1/2 acre <br />minimum lot size requirement for the south 2 acre lot. As a result of this <br />metes and bounds subdivision, Ramsey's undeveloped land inventory will be <br />reduced by 20 acres. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Peterson, Cmmissioners Ziamerman, <br />Dee~er, Hendriksen, Johnson and LaDue. Voting No: None. Absent: <br />Cc~ssioner Kennen. <br /> <br />Request For Metes And Bounds Subdivision: Case of Mr. Dick Ploog: <br /> <br />(lm~ission consensus, after reviewing the half-section map, is that a metes <br />and bounds subdivision is not necessary as it already is a lot of record. <br /> <br />Reguest For Preliminary_ Planned Unit Develo_u~.nt Plan Review: <br /> Case Of Northfork Develo_rment: <br /> <br />Mr. Gait was present representing the (~ners of Northfork Development. <br /> <br />Mr. Gait reviewed with the Commission the develolm~nt ooncept that was <br />presented in January plus some additional maps which oolor code the phases of <br />development. <br /> <br />Mr. Gait addressed all points of concern listed in City Engineer letter dated <br />April 2, 1985. <br /> <br />Mot/on by Commissio~r ~'=mer and seconded by Oamtissioner ~endriksen to <br />recommend Council preliminary total concept approval of the West Oaks P.U.D. <br />(formerly known as General Mills property). <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Peterson, Cc~missioners Zimmerman, <br />Deemer, LaDue, Hendriksenand Johnson. Voting No: None. Absent: <br />Commissioner Kennen. <br /> <br />Motion by Oommissioner ~er and seconded by C(xmmissioner Z hmmerman to <br />r~ Council preliminary plat approval of Phase I for the West Oaks <br />P.U.D. contingent upon City Engineer's letter dated April 2, 1985. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Peterson, Omnissioners ~mer, <br />Zi~merman, ~anue, Hendriksen and Johnson. Voting No: None. Absent: <br />Co~ssioner Kennen. <br /> April 2, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 5 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />