My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2003
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2003
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:30:21 AM
Creation date
6/4/2003 10:56:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
03/06/2003
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.
/
219
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
Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Pearson, Cook, Elvig, Kurak, <br />Strommen, and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Kurak, to adopt Resolution <br />#03-01-009 authorizing signatures for financial transactions. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Cook, Kurak, Elvig, Pearson, <br />Strommen, and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case #2: Request for Preliminary Plat Review of Rivenwick 3ra Addition; Case of <br /> Turtle Moon, Inc. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald stated that the City Council met on November 12,' 2002, and reviewed <br />the proposed subdivision. During the meeting, several issues and concerns were raised. The City <br />Council inquired how the developer is going to handle the adjoining property to the south that <br />has a fence located on the developer's property. Subsequent to the City Council meeting, Mr. <br />Shulte discussed this issue with the title company and they are Unwilling to allow Mr. Shulte to <br />provide an easement to the resident whose fence protrudes onto the developer's property. Mr. <br />Shulte is willing to wo~:k with the resident to assist in removing the fence and may be willing to <br />pay half the cost associated in removing the-fence from the property. Concerns were raised in <br />regard to Riverdale Drive possibly needing to be realigned in the future to .meet MnDot's <br />intersection separation requirements for the Regional Park entrance and continuation of <br />Riverdale Drive west. Subsequent to the City Council meeting, staff met with the Anoka County <br />Engineer and Anoka County Attorney. Anoka County Staff agreed that a frontage road would <br />probably continue west through the regional park and the main entrance to the Park would be at <br />the intersection of Highway #10 and Ramey Boulevard. City Staff asked if it would be legally <br />possible to move the Riverdale Drive intersection south in the future to meet MnDot's second <br />entrance intersection separation requirements. It is the County Attorney's opinion that if the <br />County and the City needed to realign the Riverdale Drive intersection in the future, this would <br />most likely be possible when the correct government agency took control of the property. The <br />City would most likely be responsible for finding additional land that is contiguous to the <br />regional park to swap with the government agency for the land that would be utilized for road <br />right-of-way for the intersection and continuation of Riverdale D'rive. Anoka County staff made <br />it clear that the current platted Riverdale Drive intersection cannot 'be changed until the <br />appropriate government agency is able to take control of the proPerty and at this point, the <br />County is unable to determine when that will occur. Since Riverdale Drive is a designated MSA <br />road, the Council inquired whether Riverdale Drive could be constructed to temporary standards <br />until the realignment of Riverdale Drive occurred, MnDot would require Riverdale Drive to be <br />constructed to MSA standards, however, there are measures the City could take to reduce road <br />construction cost. The City Council also questioned if the placement of the 12-inch waterline <br />would be affected if Riverdale Drive were to be relocated. Staff and the developer have <br />discussed this issue and determined that the 12-inch waterline could be placed so that it would <br />not need to be relocated even if Riverdale Drive is required to be realigned in the future. The <br /> <br />City Council/January 14, 2003 <br /> - Page 9 of 27 <br /> <br />?35 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.