My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 06/01/2006
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
2006
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 06/01/2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 3:52:12 PM
Creation date
7/13/2006 7:41:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
06/01/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
<br />they continue with this proposal as it is, without at least discussion about the options and <br />reasonable agreement of all the parties involved. <br /> <br />Mr. Wellman stated he would also like to say in the two months since the church posted their <br />property for sale he received not less than 30 calls from developers and from two dozen small <br />business owners. The church has been set to a limit as to what they can do with their property <br />from the City now, and that is affected by the development of Gary Stritesky's property. The <br />church could have used the rental income from some small business owners, but it is zoned R-2 <br />and they have been told it cannot be changed without a permit change similar to this. He has <br />been before the Commission before to acquire a permit for another leased property for their <br />church, and they cannot move forward until their property sells. With the special permits they <br />have been applying and working with the City on, they would like to ask for the Commission's <br />consideration to allow them to come up with another option for the development of the Stritesky <br />property. The church did not even know about the cul-de-sac or the proposed road going through <br />as a public street instead of a private road. He understands there may be some exemptions that <br />could be done by the City on size, but the church would like to have the opportunity because they <br />have not been involved and have not seen all the paperwork. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked if the legal notice requirements were met with this application. <br /> <br />Associate Planner DaInes replied notification for the church went out to the property address of <br />14600 Nowthen Boulevard, which is the mailing address on file with the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Wellman stated 14600 Nowthen Boulevard is the taxation mailing address; as a church they <br />do not pay taxes. The correct address is listed for assessments paid by the church, and they did <br />not receive any notification to that correct address. 14600 Nowthen Boulevard is not an <br />operating office or business, and there is no reception of mail at that address. <br /> <br />Ben Deemer, 14501 Sunfish Lake Boulevard NW, stated he has comments on both the plan and <br />the zoning. First of all, on the property immediately to the north, the capacity of that property <br />was reduced last year by 25% through denial of the variance. It is currently zoned R-2 for all 4 <br />parcels, and single family detached units are not allowed, so rezoning is necessary for the <br />proposed plat to exist. It looks to him like the proposal suggests a street that will pass through <br />the lots to the north that will reduce the parcels north of there by 30% in area and reduce the <br />adjacent parcel by Y, in density due to the setbacks and everything else involved. This might be <br />considered a taking for further action involving the street. Mr. Deemer stated the proposed street <br />will create a safety hazard because southbound traffic on County Road #5 at night will have <br />northbound headlights on Helium in a place it is not expected, which is a safety aspect. This is <br />spot rezoning to allow detached single units that should not be considered unless the PUD <br />reflects the entire parcels. Without conditions what it does to the remaining R-2 parcels may be <br />rushing in favor of one parcel over the other three. The developer should have to own all the <br />parcels before creating restrictions that will affect the others. The biggest restriction is the street <br />that is proposed to go through those parcels taking 30% of the land. <br /> <br />Derwood Sagwold stated he is the current owner of the two lots to the north of the subject <br />property, with one of the lots being the narrow outlot. He stated he purchased this property in <br /> <br />Planning Commission/June 1,2006 <br />Page 4 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.