My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 05/14/2002
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2002
>
Agenda - Council - 05/14/2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 11:07:40 AM
Creation date
9/2/2003 3:37:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
05/14/2002
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.
/
311
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
-170- <br /> <br />to the next property and to his knowledge, there isnot a proposal for a buffer. He asked if these <br />units could be pushed further away from the existing homes to the west. <br /> <br />Principal Planner Trudgeon responded the units would have to be 40 feet from the property line <br />according to City Code, but agreed that this should be considered. <br /> <br />Dave Putnam, Northwest Civil Engineers, stated there is a city storm sewer system and there is <br />not enough room to plant screen materials along the west property line without encroaching on <br />the storm sewer easement. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski said generally, it is not acceptable to plant anything that would interfere <br />with the purpose of the easement. If the ground needed to be dug up and the storm sewer <br />repaired, which is rare, shrUbs would be alright but trees probably wouldn't be an acceptable plant <br />material. A discussion took place regarding the types of landscaping that could be used for this. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt commented that this is a fairly full plan. Some of the clustering could be <br />relieved if there were fewer units. <br /> <br />Commissioner Watson noted that he didn't see a second access to this property. <br /> <br />A1 Kempf, 15220 St. Francis Boulevard, said he is the property owner to the south. He asked <br />where the children will play. He said he has a large piece of property and is not planning on <br />having his backyard turned into a playground. He understood a park would be included in this <br />development. On the preliminary grading and draining plan, he doesn't see how the water would <br />get to the pond. He indicated he was supportive of the Orchard Hills development and the main <br />reason for that was the developer was responsive to the neighborhood's needs. H:e has not had <br />discussions with this developer. The cul-de-sac is 60 feet from his porch. EIe said he assumes the <br />glare from headlights on cars that come around the cul-de-sac would be in his sightline in this <br />porch. He stated he is looking for a privacy fence on the property line. He explained he has lived <br />there 30 years and considers this a way of life. He said he thinks the project owes him a barrier <br />from the traffic and cul-de-sac. <br /> <br />Chad Hayes, 15243 Germanium Circle, stated .this abuts his backyard as well. He suggested a <br />fence be put in instead of a lilac bush, for example, for screening. <br /> <br />Motion by Chairperson Nixt, seconded by Commissioner Sweet, to close the public hearing. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Sweet, Brauer, Johnson, <br />Kociscak, Reeve, and Watson. Voting No: None. Absent: None. <br /> <br />The public hearing closed at 9:26 p.m. <br /> <br />Commission Business <br /> <br />Commissioner Sweet stated this plan looks crowded to her. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/February 7, 2002 <br /> Page 13 of 19 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.