My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 10/08/2002
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2002
>
Agenda - Council - 10/08/2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 11:12:10 AM
Creation date
9/3/2003 11:10:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
10/08/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
147
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
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />Preliminary Plat Review: Villas at Meadow Point <br />August 20, 2002, Revised September 20, 2002, Revised October 4, 2002 <br />Page 2 of $ <br /> <br />Density: The preliminary plat contains 23.36 acres. Of that amount, 0.7 acres are wetlands. <br />The net density of the property is 1.8 units per acre. If the Outtots are factored out (8.6 <br />acres), the density will be 3.12 units per acre. It is the City's understanding that the outlots are <br />proposed to be developed in the future. With the R-2 Zoning District regulations, the <br />property shown in the preliminary plat (including the outlots when developed) cannot exceed <br />7 units per net acre). <br /> <br />Lots: The R-2 Zoning District does not have a minimum lot size for townhouse units. <br />However, the R-2 District does require certain setbacks. All structures must be setback 30 <br />feet from the exterior boundary line. It appears that all of the townhouse units meet this <br />requirement. Under the R-2 District, townhouses must be setback 25 feet from the public <br />right-of-way and 25 feet from the edge of curb of the private street. It "appears that ali <br />townhouse units meet the. setback from the public and private streets. The single-family lots <br />meet all of the dimensional requirements required by City Ordinances. <br /> <br />Open Space: Under City Ordinances, townhome developments shall have a minimum of 40% <br />of the development property as open-space for the enjoyment of its residents, Qualifying <br />areas include grassed lawns, landscaped areas, gardens, natural areas, landscape rack, mulch, <br />wetlands, and ponding areas. Of the 40% open space, 10% of the open space is required to <br />be grouped together in a way that is easily identifiable. You have indicated that in a future <br />phase, you will be constructing a community building that will serve the residents of this <br />development. The City will count this as meeting the 10% common space requirement. <br />However, if the community building is not built, you will be responsible for creating the <br />required common space in future phases. <br /> <br />Landscapi.ng: The R-2 Zoning District requires extensive landscaping for townhouse <br />developments. The landscaping plan will be reviewed as part of the site plan process. <br /> <br />· Tree Protection Plan: You. have submitted a tree protection plan. Currently the City has no <br />ordinances governing tree preservation. However, it is a issue of great interest to the <br />community. A task force has been set up to prepare an ordinance governing tree preservation. <br />At this time, the plan appears to be generally acceptable, but the City would encourage you to <br />work closely wkh City Staff to identify additional, areas for tree protection. <br /> <br />Streets: The plat proposes public street access to County Road 57 and Alpine Drive (formerly <br />153'a Ave.); a city municipal state aide road. Additionally, public streets had been stubbed to <br />the adjacent property lines on the north, east, and west boundaries to provide future access to <br />these properties should they desire to develop in the future. <br /> <br />The extension of these streets was an issue of discussion at the public hearings. The neighbor <br />to the west objected to the concept of physically having a street extended to her property line. <br />Likewise the resident to the east felt that the location of the street stub might not be at the <br />best location to serve future development of his property. The Planning Commission <br /> <br />-139- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.