My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
04/13/88
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Economic Development Commission
>
Agendas
>
1988
>
04/13/88
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/21/2025 11:38:54 AM
Creation date
10/23/2006 11:03:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Document Title
Economic Development Commission
Document Date
04/13/1988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
82
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 />Comments on The ~Trunk Highway *10 Corridor Study~ - continued <br /> <br />be taking some of. that value first by down-zoning <br />acquiring rights in my property without paying .fair <br />compensation as provided in the Constitution of the <br />United States. <br /> <br />c. When I wish to develop, and the county is not ready <br />to condemn, the courts will permit me to develop any <br />land designated park. At that time I will need an <br />appropriate zoning and not park as a zoning. <br /> <br />5. As stated in ~4, the suggested us~ designations of my farm on <br />figure fiB are inappropriate for the following reasons: <br /> <br />a. The land designated R/C-Retail/Comroercial is only on <br />the north side of the service road, instead of on <br />the north and south sides as in Alpaca estates. It <br />does not make sense to plan low-density residential <br />to front along the south side of the commercial- <br />industrial service road, as shown in figure fiB. <br />Single-family lots fronting on such a road will not <br />be desirable. <br /> <br />Retail commercial is of questionable feasibility in <br />this location because the transit plan has the T.H. <br />filO access points so far from my farm. <br /> <br />The land deSignated R/C-Retail/Commercial should be <br />either light industrial like on Alpaca Estates, <br />offices, high-teCh buildings, or apartments. <br /> <br />Before the south-side service road is constructed, <br />this use should be settled, so that the lots between <br />the service road and T.H. filO are deep enough, <br />otherwise the service road should be located adja- <br />cent to T.H. filO. <br /> <br />b. The land designated park (which should be SF-Single <br />Family) is too deep from north to south along <br />Traprock Street. The north boundary of this land <br />should extend from 142nd Avenue Northwest (on the <br />west) to Traprock Street (on the east) following <br />along the north or south lines of Plat #89233, <br />Parcel #2500. <br /> <br />c. That area between the R/C-Retail/Commercial and said <br />boundary line, described in ~b~ above, should be <br />Residential PUD (allOWing a density of ten-to-twelve <br />units per acre) or even apartments. If Schwartzman <br />can get MF-Mul tiple Family along the river, this <br />should be no problem. <br /> <br />12- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.