Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Raatikka referred to a letter dated June 7 from the City of Elk River and <br />stated that Elk River expects Ramsey to p~rticipete in the oost of renovating <br />Jarvis due to the increase in traffic! Elk River also noted that property <br />adjacent to the Northfork project is zoned industrial. <br /> <br />Mr. Gait stated that the ~evelopers do have some concern with adjacent property <br />being industrial but it should not impact Phase 1 of the Northfork development. <br />With respect to the anticipated need to renovate Jarvis, Elk River's industrial <br />zone might influence the construction of Jarvis which in turn impacts the cost <br />of renovation. Mr. Gait stated that he doesn't think the North Fork <br />partnership is adverse to participating in the cost of renovating Jarvis <br />providing it is a fair share as it relates to the benefit and need for that <br />road -- residential versus industrial. <br /> <br />Oouncilmember (]ox referred again to the subject of one access road into the <br />development and the potential hazards created by that in times of e~ergency. <br /> <br />Mr. Gait stated that there is an access easement proposed through Outlot C <br />o0~m~_ncing at the cul-de-sac of White Tail Trail a~d proceeding south to ~y. <br />~10; it will not be a fully improved road but it will be kept open year around <br />for marketing purposes; developers would be agreeable to having this access <br />also available in emergency situations. <br /> <br />Oouncil consensus is that the unimproved roadway extending south from the White <br />Tail Trail cul-de-sac will be written into the develou~.nt agreement as an <br />emergency access. <br /> <br />Oouncil proceeded to discuss the proposed findings of fact. <br /> <br />Mayor Heitman expressed some concern with the language 'any exceptions' <br />contained in Item ~18. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that he believes the only exceptions that language would <br />refer to is that some of the lots are not 2-1/2 acres in size. <br /> <br />Mayor ~eitman inquired if the 'any exceptions' language gives a license to <br />create exceptions in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich replied that the Findings of Fact does not grant anything; it says <br />that the City has looked at the plat, recognized the variances and stated that <br />those variances are acceptable. Ordinance requires a finding that says any <br />exceptions are justified by design of develoim~nt. Any variance from the plat <br />approved by Gouncil at this time, would have to come before (buncil for <br />approval. <br /> <br />~ouncil proceeded to discuss the variance to street names and suffixes. <br /> <br />Mr. Gait reported that Planning and Zoning has no objection to the variance <br />fr~m street names and suffi~s if the names and numbering is acceptable with <br />the 911 headquarters. <br /> <br />Gouncil oonsensus is that the developer should also ~---ck approval from the <br /> June 11, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 7 of 14 <br /> <br /> <br />