My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 04/07/1997
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
1997
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 04/07/1997
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/20/2025 2:30:31 PM
Creation date
6/26/2003 11:08:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
04/07/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
Peterson, Good Value Homes, Inc., responded they could easily be moved closer to the street. <br />Commissioner Deemer wondered if the purposed placement of the two pads was related to <br />preservation of existing trees; Mr. Peterson responded, "maybe." <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Jensen, accesses fi.om various lots within the proposed subdivision were <br />reviewed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Holland confirmed that ifrezoning occurred, the total area would be affected including <br />existing homes. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jensen inquired about storm sewers. Mr. Peterson responded water would be directed <br />into the wetland area. Mr. lankowski added there would be a detention pond located in the <br />southwest corner of the wetland area which would help provide for appropriate drainage. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jensen questioned access to sewer and water services and wondered what potential <br />road construction issues may be incurred on T.H.//47. Mr. Jankowski responded routing of the <br />proposed line(s) have yet to be submitted. He added there is a need to implement a loop in the <br />routing design. T.H. #47 would not realize direct road construction, although some lineage may be <br />placed along the highway within the right of way. Also, use ofjersey barriers could be an option. <br />Ms. Kris Schramm, resident on 160~' Lane, interjected she did not receive any notification about a <br />public hearing and corresponding discussion/decision. This concerned her as it was her belief that <br />160th Lane would be an access street to T.H. ~47 utilized by prospective residents of Apple Ridge. <br />Mr. Jankowski explained/reviewed identified access streets: 156th Lane would be used with an <br />estimated 157 trips; 160t~ Lane and Sodium would be used with an estimated 181 trips; and 15'P <br />Lane would be used to access County Road #5 with an estimated 66 trips. He added these numbers <br />would most likely decrease aPtera while. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson highlighted points of perspective in favor of Apple Ridge's approval as follows. There <br />would be no negative impact on adjacent property values. Good Value Homes has reduced the <br />number of allowed lots (179) to 141 or 142 lots. Traffic patterns have been altered several times to <br />accommodate the majority of interested parties. Attempts have been made to work with neighbors <br />(I.e. screening and fences) as well as neighborhoods in dose proximity to the proposed development. <br />Recommendations made by the Parks and Recreation Commission have been followed. Mr. Peterson <br />also noted five existing areas developed within the City with property specification smaller than the <br />ones being proposed for Apple Ridge that abut rural density neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Commissioner Holland inquired about a breakaway to existing neighborhoods. Mr. Peterson <br />responded this is not a decision to be made by Good Value Homes, but that of the City' s if so desired. <br />Mr. Jankowski added that he is not aware of any similar cities which have used a breakaway and <br />outlined some related concerns. Mr. Jankowski also made reference to his view of Apple Ridge <br />becoming connected to another neighborhood; he would not be in favor ofbreakaway placement. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jensen inquired about a potential park connection to Apple Ridge, and placement of <br />utilities. Mr. Peterson responded he has approached existing neighbors to the proposed development <br />about purchase of six acres for use in development of a passive park which would serve Apple Ridge <br /> <br />Planning Commission/April 7, 1997 <br /> Page 4 of 8 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.