My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 06/08/2004
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
2004
>
Minutes - Council - 06/08/2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/24/2025 2:48:37 PM
Creation date
6/16/2004 9:27:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
06/08/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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 and approval. The applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat that includes 140 <br />townhouses and condominium units along with Outlot B, Outlot A, and Lot 1, Block 4. Outlot B <br />will most likely consist of commercial uses. It should be mentioned that future development of <br />Outlot B will require detailed attention to re-mitigation measures to ensure that envirolzmental <br />concerns are addressed and appropriate development occurs. The original preliminary plat <br />proposed to construct a total of 195 heritage town homes and carriage condominiums. The <br />revised preliminary plat is proposing to develop 140 townhouse and condominium units and net <br />density has been established at 7.62 units per acre. The proposed density for the subject project <br />is within the density criteria of 7 to 15 units per acre established in the R-3 District. The revised <br />preliminary plat and site are requesting the same setback deviations that were approved as part of <br />the original preliminary plat. It should be noted that the unit numbering system has changed and, <br />therefore, the City Staff Review Letter dated June 4, 2004, will need to be updated to correspond <br />the correct unit receiving a deviation from setback standards. The revised development will still <br />meet the off-street parking, open space, townhouse size, and architectural standards requirements <br />established in City Code. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald reviewed that the Council had granted preliminary plat approval with the <br />installation of an eight foot high fence, along with a 10 foot high section installed where the units <br />were located immediately adjacent to Highway 10 for noise mitigation measures. The revised <br />plat is providing an eight foot berm and landscaping along the berm adjacent to Highway 10 to <br />address traffic noise concerns instead of the proposed wall. The developer was unable to <br />construct a berm within the original plat, however, with the proposed revision, a berm is now <br />possible. The Council will need to discuss whether the proposed eight foot berm and related <br />landscaping will meet the intent of the Council's sound mitigation measures approved as part of <br />the original preliminary plat. It should be noted the condominium unit that was located closest to <br />Highway 10 has been removed from the plat. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald indicated the revised preliminary plat proposes several desired changes: <br />1) An eight foot berm with extensive landscaping is being proposed to address traffic noise <br />concerns along Highway 10. 2) All ponding is being directed into an existing pond and drainage <br />easement pattern throughout the development. 3) A mixture of commercial and residential uses <br />will be more closely integrated within the MU-PUD zoned property. Staff recommends approval <br />of the revised preliminary plat. <br /> <br />Councihnember Kurak i~quired about the issue of the sidewalk being included on both sides of <br />the street. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald replied that will be addressed in the final plat. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman asked if there will be eight feet of berm plus the eight foot fence. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald replied there would be eight feet of berm with landscaping on top. This <br />does not meet the MPCA decibel standard, but the Council approved a wall that did not meet the <br />standard either. <br /> <br />City Council/June 8, 2004 <br />Page 15 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.