My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 03/27/2001
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2001
>
Agenda - Council - 03/27/2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 12:20:19 PM
Creation date
9/4/2003 11:20:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
03/27/2001
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.
/
235
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
Commissioner Watson inquired if there had been any issues in the past with private streets i~ fhe <br /> City. <br /> <br /> Principal Planner Trudgeon replied that every City deals with some issues reg~g private <br /> streets. The one problem with private streets is that they are typically not built, t~'~i~::S~dards. <br /> <br /> Mr. Black explained that the private streets would be constructed to the sa~eT~, ality standa~dg}¢:f. <br /> City streets and by allowing private streets they would be able to desi~a m~-:~o~ative <br /> the property,. There will be a large association that will maintain t, he'~0~dways ~properties. <br /> <br /> Acting Chairperson Johnson inquired about the lot that does.:,~:n6~ ~'eet. ~2 ,~, the s~ack requirements. <br /> Principal Planner Tmdgeon explained that a lot must be 80¢;feet wide ~}~:~"35-foot setback mark <br /> and the lot is approximately S0 feet at the 35-foo¢~:s~t'6~c~: ::.Tl~e dev~10~ei~;~ould apply fora <br /> variance, redraw the lot lines, or the City could requir~a fur~he~sethaCk'~h thOr:lot. <br /> <br /> Mr. Black replied that it would be their intention to build on the i:6t Where it meets the 80-foot <br /> width requirement. , <br /> <br /> Acting Chairperson Johnson inquire~iif~::i~ilkould permit a further setback. <br /> <br /> Mr. Black replied yes. <br /> <br /> Acting Chairperson Johnson inquired if ther6woutdbe any coneern with shoreland. <br /> <br /> Mr. Black replied~ha~h;'wbuld have to rese~cl~ that issue. <br /> <br /> Commissioner: Watson state~nat~ he would re&~e~d leaving Fluorine as a cul-de-sac and not <br /> connect ~e,::~wo developm~t~J' He feels that thei~isting neighbors would be more receptive of <br /> the d~v~I0P~mt if they d~-'~i:;~He expresse~i~cern with the connection of the townhome units <br /> to the senior c0~'!¢~ l~c~use:~fthe ~'~3~ ir'could have on traffic along Dysprosium Street. <br />~7:z~(X~g:Chairperson"~ir~.~hn~-~on inqTired if the developer had any contact with the neighborhood to <br /> <br /> Mr. Black repl/ed that they;~have not held any neighborhood meetings at this point. <br /> <br /> Acting Chairp~3n Johnson stated that the degree in which the developer provides accurate <br /> information to;:~e adjacent residents will be a benefit to the development. People who live along <br /> :.Iodine will bd~pacted by' the traffic and even though he believes the project looks good, people <br /> ;~::':; ~ image al?~)rts of things in the absence of accurate information. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/March 6, 2001 <br />Page 5 of 6 I <br /> I <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.