My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 08/08/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
2005
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 08/08/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 3:55:50 PM
Creation date
9/27/2005 1:28:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
08/08/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
and then there will be one little section with six or seven lots on it that will look real funny next <br />to thc large lots. <br /> <br />Motion by Chairperson Nixt, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing at <br />7:57 p.m. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Johnson, Levine, Shepherd, and <br />Van Scoy. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioners Brauer and Watson. <br /> <br />Commission Business <br /> <br />Mr. Petcrson stated that at the preliminary planning meeting with the engineers he raised the <br />drttinagc issue that Mr. Smith raised. He indicated that if he shows the road on Mr. Smith's <br />property, he apologizes, and it is an oversight that will be corrected. He stated one concern <br />raised by thc neighbors was the amount of traffic going onto Garnet, and as a solution to that it <br />was suggested that another access be provided to Nowthen Boulevard, but he does not need it <br />~]'om his point of view. <br /> <br />Mt'. Pctcrson showed how the road was intended some day to continue through to Garnet, stating <br />lhat in his opinion it could just dead-end. He stated the other thing he has discussed with Mr. <br />Smith is that lac will hold those lots off market for some time, however they have not agreed on <br />how loug. <br /> <br />Mt'. Pcterson explained that concerning the extension of 167th Avenue, there is a logical <br />align nent that could go on 166m Avenue instead. He stated that the 90 degree turns would be <br />eliminated. Fie indicated he has purchased two homes along the right-of-way, and the road <br />would go all the way over to Variolite, to the right-of-way the City already has. He stated that if <br />thc road were going to be put in according to the Comprehensive Plan, it goes right through Mr. <br />()vertoom's property. <br /> <br />Mt'. l'clcrson stated that another issue he had with Staff, that he thought was solved, was a <br />question el~ a cul-de-sac. He showed a revision proposed that would eliminate a cul-de-sac and <br />provide tt stub street to Mr. Overtoom's property. <br /> <br />C',hairpcrson Nixt asked what rights the City has to avoid construction in the conservation <br />easement areas. <br /> <br />/\ssociatc Planner Geisler stated there would be no structures permitted in the easement, besides <br />the, trail, and the trail would act as the southern boundary of the conservation easement to help <br />delineate the easement boundary. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked who is paying for the trail. <br /> <br />A~sociate Planner Geisler stated that Park and Trail fees would be used to construct the trail. <br /> <br />Chairl~crson Nixt asked where people can gain access to the trail. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/August 8, 2005 <br /> Page 7 of 26 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.