Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/16/1992

Home

REVIV. W Background: CASE #2: REVISED SKETCI~ PLAN FOR FLEISCHER'S 2ND ADDITION; CASE OF JACK MENKVELD, NORTH SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik On June 1:4,~ 19~0, the City of Ramsey received an application for a subdivision to be named Fle~scher s ~2nd ~ddifion. On July 3,:!99Q, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the sketch plan for Fleischer's 2nd Additi0n~ At that time, the Commission recommended revisions to the sketch plan to provide for future a~¢es4 to the property to the north and to realign the accesses onto Nowthen Blvd. N.W. so they w0tfld 1he up with the accesses from Wood Pond Hills to the west onto Nowthen Blvd. N.W. On Februa~ 11!, 1992, the City received a revised sketch plan submitted by Jack Menkveld of North Sub6~bax(. Development Company. Mr. Menkveld and Doloras Fleischer have provided written verification that Mr. Menkveld will be assuming the development of Fleischer's 2nd Addition. ~ On March 2, 1992, the Commission reviewed the revised sketch plan which did provide for future access to thc prgperty to the north and the accesses onto Nowthen Blvd. did align with accesses from Wood Porid Hills onto Nowthen Blvd. N.W. However, the plat showed numerous parcels having direCt ac :ess onto the collector street in the plat. The developer was advised to revise the sketch plan[t0 e~ minate direct accesses onto the collector street. On March 12, 1!i92, the City received a revised sketch plan for Fleischer's 2nd Addition. Observati~ns:~ The revised ske~h plan dated March 12, 1992, eliminates the accesses onto the collector street in the plat. Tha re~ision has resulted in reducing the number of proposed lots from 92 to 87. It does appear that ~ail of the lots now meet the minimum lot width at the street, however, some of them do narrow substant'r~lY from the building setback line to the rear property line. These configurations, in addition to required setbacks (especially on comer lots) could substantially restrict the placement and type of~ hordes that could be constructed on the lots. At this time, Staff cannot say for sure how many :il0ts kre hampered by the narrow configurations. Another concern is the proposed layout for Lot l!rBlock 6. As you will note, the lot is proposed to access onto a cul-de-sac street via a driveway ',~tween Lots 3 and 4. In the interest of publishing this agenda in a timely manner, this case is;§Oin[g forward without a detailed report of just how many lots are restricted by the narrow configu,fations. However, additional information will be available from Staff at the meeting on MarCh 16. You will also note that the developer has proposed a park lot adjacent to Outlot A. The plat has not yet been pr&sent~d to the Park Commission, however, they will be reviewing the park dedication requirements pribr to the preliminary plat public hearing. In addition:to ye revised sketch plan received on March 12, 1992, a copy of the sketch plan reviewed ol~!M~rch 2nd is enclosed for your information and comparison purposes. I am also enclosing the si~ location map and the City Staff review letter pertaining to the original sketch plan. '7