My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 07/08/2003
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2003
>
Agenda - Council - 07/08/2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/24/2025 3:51:17 PM
Creation date
7/3/2003 2:01:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
07/08/2003
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.
/
383
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
Coun¢ilmember Pearson expressed concern with how close the units are to the road. He inquired <br />how they measure the 30-foot setback when there is a slope. <br /> <br />Brian Johnson, Hakanson Anderson, explained that the setback is measured horizontal. He felt <br />that the 30-foot setback would allow for them to plant the landscaping to show a good project. <br />The net density does exclude the wetlands. They have 42.4 acres with the combined Alpine <br />Acres and 2''d Addition, and they are proposing 208 units, which would be 4.9 units per acre with <br />the wetlands included. When they take out the wetlands they are at 6.3 units per acre and the <br />ordinance allows for up to 7 units per acre. Within the development, they are proposing 8-foot <br />trails surrounding the development and there will be five foot sidewalks along the public streets. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak stated that she was concerned about the density, how the buildings are <br />positioned and how close they are to the road. There is one situation along Alpine Drive where <br />there is no buffer between the end of the cul-de-sac and Alpine Drive. She recommended that a <br />fence be constructed in that location to provide privacy for the new units as well as the people <br />who live across the street. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated that he would prefer to see some sort of plantings rather than a <br />fence. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak replied that she did not believe that plants would provide adequate <br />screening. She stated that she would like to see the City require privacy fences along all <br />roadways and adjoining property owners. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook inquired if the developer was proposing a substantial amount of screening <br />along C.R. #5. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson replied yes. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated that he thought they were presenting a fairly decent project that <br />needs some'adjustment and apologized for all of the comments being negative. He stated that he <br />would like the opportunity to sit down in a work session to work things out and allow for some <br />more discussion. <br /> <br />Mayor Garnet stated that he would rather see trees rather than fencing because he does not want <br />to "box off' the development. He felt that the area should have a residential feeling. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that he thought the main issue was density. He recommended either <br />reducing the number of units or changing the layout. He stated that he would agree that the cul- <br />de-sac length should be reduced so that there is a buffer between the cul-de-sac and Alpine <br />Drive. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak inquired as to the price range of the units. <br /> <br />City Council/June 10, 2003 <br />Page 12 of 22 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.