My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2014
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2014
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:21:05 AM
Creation date
7/9/2014 12:31:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
06/05/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
194
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
Review File: COUNTRY CLUB HILLS. <br />Major Plat Preliminary Plat Request <br />Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Review <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />The original approval explicitly did not require a <br />connection to Traprock Street (in the southwest <br />corner), which would connect this development <br />to Traprock Commons. This was based on <br />significant feedback from residents of Traprock <br />Commons. The Development Agreement for <br />Traprock Commons did note that Traprock Street <br />would connect to the north when development to <br />the north occurred, and the cul-de-sac was <br />constructed as a temporary cul-de-sac. However, <br />residents of Traprock Commons expressed <br />opposition to this connection, an ultimately this <br />connection was not required by the City Council. <br />The corridor was reserved as an outlot (shown on <br />the plans as Outlot A), but not a street connection. <br />Staff has asked that the Planning Commission <br />make a recommendation specific to this aspect of the Plat. City Staff is not suggesting that this discussion <br />be reviewed; however finds it helpful that the Planning Commission either re -affirm the assumptions from <br />the original approval or to discuss further with surrounding residents. Based on feedback received thus far, <br />it appears that multiple residents of Traprock Commons continue to oppose any connection of Traprock <br />Street. <br />ENTRANCE <br />MONUMENT <br />Pb} r6.]1?S3rocvr <br />SAY, 1c A0LI s ¢uNr-. <br />i�� uAP�T sr NW <br />597 <br />ENTRANCE <br />MONUMENT <br />1632.2.5.54.4 <br />+ Mr9NJ5@M A. NW >A <br />14` <br />II <br />/! <br />1 8 -I - 4 V ll 6 <br />CONVAAON <br />ru+a mAPas>a sr Nw <br />Staff would like to discuss the potential to extend a hydrant to the south to the terminus of Traprock Street <br />for the specific purpose of public safety and Fire Department Services. A hydrant in this area would <br />significantly benefit efforts of our Fire Department in the event of an emergency, and would have the <br />potential for insurance benefit to individual property owners. <br />Finally, a number of residents have expressed a willingness to discuss a pedestrian trail in this location, <br />provided that it does not ultimately lead to the construction of a roadway connection. <br />Sidewalks and Trails. Sidewalks are proposed on one side of each public street except for the cul-de-sacs. <br />The plans indicate a new proposed trail location on the eastern boundary. The Applicant shall clarify on the <br />plans if this is existing in the alignment shown and label as such. <br />Additional Reviews: Plans will be required to be approved by the Lower Rum River Watershed <br />Management Organization. Additionally, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was completed <br />with the original plat. The City finds that the changes from the original Preliminary Plat approval for <br />Sweetbay Ridge are not significant enough to require a revised EAW. This finding is after consultation with <br />the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Staff, the entity that manages said environmental review process. <br />Building Elevations: No elevations of the proposed homes were submitted. Individual models are not <br />included for review. In a single family development, it is difficult to approve every individual model at time <br />of Plat. As with the original Preliminary Plat, no enhanced architecture above the minimum City Code <br />requirements is being proposed. The required Development Agreement shall clearly state that additional <br />architectural requirements are not being required at this time, and that the underlying requirements for the <br />R-1 Residential (MUSA) District are required. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.