Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Anderson replied that Mr. Bulow indicated during the last meeting that the <br />development would not be marketed for seniors, but that his experience with this type of <br />developments is that they attract seniors. <br /> <br />Ms. Gust inquired if there was any further research done regarding an access onto C.R. #116. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that he did have a meeting with the County and discussed the <br />possibility of having an access onto C.R. #116. The current plan proposes to have a right-in <br />right-out access onto C.R. #116. During the meeting with the County they discussed the <br />possibility of having a full access onto C.R. #116 located on the southeastern comer of the <br />property and the County's response was that they would prefer to have the right-in and right-out <br />access only. In regards to the traffic study to determine if the intersection of C.R. #116 and <br />Dysprosium could handle the additional traffic, it was determined that the newly constructed turn <br />lanes on C.R. #116 would be 200 feet long. They also anticipated that there will be two lanes of <br />traffic when the intersection becomes signalized which would allow for stacking of 16 vehicles <br />before the intersection would become blocked. This is adequate for the additional traffic. The <br />County Engineer also suggested that possibility of a loop connection that would allow for more <br />green light time on Dysprosium to move traffic through during peak traffic times. <br /> <br />Chairperson Anderson inquired if a full' access onto C.R. #116 has been completely eliminated as <br />a possibility. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that the full access intersection has not been ruled out, but it <br />would not be the preference of the County. He suggested that possibility of installing a median <br />that would allow left turns into the site from C.R. #116, but no left tums from the site onto C.R. <br />#116. <br /> <br />Stacey Ellingson, 5383 141~t Avenue NW, Ramsey, stated that she has lived in her home for 13 <br />years and sees no reason why the development has to connect to their existing development. She <br />suggested having a one street access into the proposed development with no access into the <br />existing development. She also stated that in the previous meeting it was brought up that there is <br />a 20 percent recreational requirement in a PUD which is not included on the site plan. She <br />explained that she spoke to some of the City Council members and she was informed that the <br />Charter Amendment states that all new developments have to be similar to adjacent <br />neighborhoods and have a "minimal impact" on the existing neighborhood" and she feels the <br />proposed development will have a great impact on the existing neighborhood. <br /> <br />Troy Bergstrom, 14022 Dysprosium Street, Ramsey, inquired if any study had been done to <br />determine what will happen to the wetlands and if Barium Street is extended to Dysprosium what <br />will the City do about moving the mailboxes on the west side of Dysprosium so that they will not <br />be dodging cars to get to their mailboxes. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/March 20, 2000 <br /> Page 3 of 15 <br /> <br /> <br />