My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 05/10/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2005
>
Agenda - Council - 05/10/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 1:48:57 PM
Creation date
5/9/2005 9:27:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
05/10/2005
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
434
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Presentation <br /> <br /> Associate Planner Wald advised that National Growth has applied for preliminary plat. and site <br /> plan review to develop a residential Planned Unit Development subdivision on the. property <br /> generally located north of Potassium Street and south of 157"' Lane. She indicated, Cit~ COde <br /> restricts density to three units per acre or up to four units per acre through a P~: She advised <br /> the Planning Commission will be reviewing the Applicant's request to rezone'tt~e.property from <br /> R-1 to PUD subsequent to this case. She stated the request for a rezOning relates to the <br /> utilization of townhomes within the development and to address deviations from City Code <br /> related to setbacks and lot standards. <br /> <br /> Associate Planner Wald stated the preliminary plat is proposing ~° ga~ access from Potassi~i~m~'~-i <br /> Street. She indicated the City Attorney has determined that Potassium Street is a public street by <br /> virtue of it having been used and kept in repair for at leaSt:six years;and thus pursuant to M/nn, <br /> Stat. 160.05 is deemed dedicated to the public. She.stated; however, that Minn. Stat. 160.05 does <br /> not provide for the width of a dedicated street, but rather 'i~s width, is dictated by the area actually <br /> maintained by the City and used by the public. Sh~-indicated' in 1982 the then City <br /> Administrator signed and recorded an affidavit indicating that the CitY was maintaining the street <br /> at a 66-foot wide width, "--'.', -" '-- <br /> <br /> Associate Planner Wald advised that city: Code requires 50% private open space, and the <br /> development is proposing 59%. She indicated the preh~.inary traffi~ generation report indicates <br /> the existing infrastructure is adequate, and peak traffic ~ill not affect the service rating because <br /> of the type of housing. She read several comments fi'0m the t~affiC report. <br /> <br /> Associate Planner Watd stated the landscape' plan is generally acceptable, and the grading and <br /> drainage plan will' need to be revised in accordance with the comments outlined in the Staff <br /> Review Letter. She stated the property contains;seVeral wetlands that will need to be protected. <br /> Staff is recommending that the. developer establish a "No Mow" or wetland buffer line. She <br /> indicated thi~ witl help establish the area that., should be manicured and what area should remain <br /> in its natural state. She noted Staffis also requesting that the developer plant appropriate seeding <br /> specifications .within a.P~rtion of the no mow zone to further establish and protect the wetland <br /> areas.-- ' :~' -:" - L_ <br /> <br /> · -~- Public Hearing :'. <br /> <br />· .': :-? ._. <br /> L:_ Chairperson Nixt Opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> Pat Hampton, 1555'1 Potassium Street, stated there were very intelligent people that evaluated <br /> Riverdale Crossing, however if you drive through there you will see it is almost impossible. He <br /> added it is already hard to get on County Roads 5 and 47, and if this is what a traffic analysis <br /> g~ves them, he is not impressed. <br /> <br />Dave Johnson, 15433 Potassium Street, stated the City does not own the full 66-feet they think <br />they own, and has yet to prove that they do. H~·asked why the homeowners have to pay to have <br /> <br />-268- <br /> <br />Planning Commission/April 7, 2005 <br /> Page 10 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.