Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/1991

Home

On November 8, 1990, the Park and Recreation Commission met to review the revised sketch plan of Faye Addition dated November 16, 1990. They denied park dedication as proposed in the revised sketch plan recommended that the developer research alternative trail alignments that would minimize street crossings. On December 13, 1990, the Park and Recreation Commission met to review an alternative trail alignment through Faye Addition as proposed by the developer. The trail was proposed to run east west through center of the plat. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended denial of the proposed alignment. On January 10, 1991, the Park and Recreation Commission met to review another proposed alignment for the trail through Faye Addition. The alignment was proposed to be located between the commercial and residential development within the plat, connecting from a proposed park in the eastern portion of the plat to the Anoka County Park to the west. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended approval of the proposed alignment contingent upon there not being a successful trade of land between Anoka County and the developer and Anoka County not acquiring the Kelly property. If the land trade and acquisition of Kelly property are successful, then the trail alignment through Faye Addition would require another review by the Park and Recreation Commission. On January 16, 1991, the City of Ramsey received the developers request for preliminary plat approval. On February 25, 1991, the City of Ramsey received a response to the proposed preliminary plat of Faye Addition from Metro Council as it relates to the Mississippi River Critical Area Interim Development Regulations. Metro Council listed the following concerns: 1) Not all of the subject property is within the 1990 Urban Area; 2) A vegetation plan is required to show how vegetation will be protected; 3) The proposed trail alignment is away from the Mississippi River and eliminates any visual or physical access to the river; 4) Development plans may conflict with possible future airport safety zoning; 5) Phasing plan for the development should take into consideration that the City is under a 500 REC limit until Anoka wastewater treatment plant is phased out. I spoke with Larry Hartman of EQB on February 26, 1991 and he indicated that the City of Ramsey could be expecting a written response from that agency itemizing the same concerns as Metro Council had. I spoke with Rand Klugel at Metro Council on February 28, 1991, and he indicated to me that the procedure now to follow is one of the City and the developer submitting a written response, and supporting documentation where applicable, to Metro Council's list of concerns. Rand did note that Anoka County is the implementing agency with respect to the regional trail system and if they are acceptable to the northerly trail alignment, then Metro Council would not object to it either. Upon receipt of that written response, Metro Council could issue a favorable review of the plat. The response would include: that final plat recording is contingent upon Phase II of the MUSA expansion, a vegetation protection plan would indicate that Outlot E is a scenic easement for preservation of vegetation, a final proposal for park dedication and trail alignment consistent with Anoka County's decisions, explanation that the area possibly affected by airport safety zoning has been planned in a way to accommodate either single family or multi- family development, a preliminary phasing plan that is in accordance with Ramsey's 500 REC limit. At the date of this writing, Ramsey has still not received any word from the Anoka County Parks and Recreation Department and Mn/DOT.