My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 10/14/2003
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2003
>
Agenda - Council - 10/14/2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/24/2025 3:55:26 PM
Creation date
10/13/2003 7:48:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
10/14/2003
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.
/
346
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
City Engineer Jankowski stated they also have had discussions on the ponding. He <br />acknowledged the revised plan has been submitted, however he is wondering if they could push <br />the pond and widen the pavement in that area. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon stated it would come into the buffer area. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jotmson asked what Staffs concern is with having the trash enclosure in the <br />buffer area. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler stated there is nothing in the Code that says it cannot be, however Staff <br />felt it conflicted with the intent of the Code. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon added when they apply this to a <br />development down the road, the intention of the buffer is not for a trash enclosure, although <br />certainly the fence helps. <br /> <br /> t <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson asked if with a fence there it might be approPriate. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon indicated it was possible. He stated the <br />solution to not having a pond there is a smaller development creating need for less bituminous <br />surface. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt indicated his view on buffers is that they are not for trash enclosures and LP <br />tanks. He stated there is not much difference between that and a building. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated he believes if they had it fenced so it was enclosed it would be <br />okay. He indicated part of the reason for the buffer is to move activity away from residential <br />areas, and it still serves that purpose. He added that the fence would screen the site. <br /> <br />Mr. Olson stated they have also increased the density of the plantings along the south property <br />line. He indicated Staff had asked for 28 trees, and they are proposing evergreens. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated if they allow the LP tank to move into the buffer area they would <br />require the entire area be fenced. <br /> <br />Mr. Olson indicated they could work with that; he stated the ordinance requires 10% fewer <br />plantings when a fence is also used. <br /> <br />Commissioner van Scoy asked if the curb cuts is a concern for Staff. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski indicated it is not a requirement to have catch basins, noting at first the <br />applicant was proposing the water just sheet down so they have come half way. <br /> <br />Putting islands in the long curb cut was proposed, however the applicants did not think it was a <br />good idea, concerned that the large vehicles may hit the islands while trying to turn. Mr. Olson <br /> <br />Planning Commission/October 2, 2003 <br /> Page 13 of 18 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.