My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2017
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:27:53 AM
Creation date
5/23/2017 10:30:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
04/06/2017
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.
/
522
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: Preliminary Plat and Variance: Homestead Road Subdivision <br />Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Review <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />Setbacks: The required setbacks are outlined below. <br />Setbacks <br />Re i uired: <br />Front ard: 30 feet <br />Side ard uninhabitable: 6 feet <br />Side ard habitable: 10 feet <br />Side ard corner: 30 feet <br />Rear ard: 30 feet <br />Minimum lot width: 80 feet/corner lot 90 feet <br />Proposed: <br />30 feet <br />6 feet <br />10 feet <br />Not applicable <br />30+ feet <br />80 feet <br />*Note: Minimum Lot Width is measured at front yard setback (30 feet from front property line), not front properly line, nor at curb line. <br />On Lots 1 and 3, the side yard setback is shown as six (6) feet. While this is accurate for the uninhabitable <br />portions of the proposed structures (garages), the minimum side yard setback for habitable (home) portions <br />is ten (10) feet. The building setback line along the east line of Lot 1 and the west line of Lot 3 shall be <br />revised to ten (10) feet. <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 potential <br />model at time of Plat. The Applicant has included a possible deck on the proposed home on Lot 1. This <br />should also be provided for the proposed home on Lot 3. Based on the proximity to the wetland setback <br />boundaries, the only possibility for a deck/patio on Lot 3 is off the northeast corner of the home. <br />Streets: 166th Ave is a Municipal State Aid (MSA) road, which requires a dedicated right-of-way (r-o-w) <br />of eighty (80) feet. The Preliminary Plat is proposing to dedicate forty (40) feet of right-of-way to the <br />public. As part of the reconstruction of 166th Ave, the City was granted a permanent road easement over <br />portions of the Subject Property. As part of the platting process, this permanent road easement underlying <br />what will become dedicated public right-of-way shall be vacated (plat must be adjusted though to ensure <br />that there is sufficient drainage and utility easement around the existing stormwater pond). A description <br />of the Easement shall be prepared by the Applicant and submitted to the City for processing an Easement <br />Vacation (done via ordinance, which requires two [2] readings by City Council). There is an existing <br />sidewalk in front of the Subject Property; no additional sidewalk is required. <br />Easements: Drainage and utility easements are required on each lot and must be ten (10) feet in width <br />abutting dedicated right-of-way, five (5) feet in width along both side lot lines, and encumber any 100-year <br />storm event for all existing and proposed surface waters and wetlands. Additionally, Drainage and Utility <br />Easements must extend at least sixteen and a half (16.5) feet beyond the delineated wetland edge. The Plat <br />must be revised to provide sufficient drainage and utility easement over both rain gardens as well as the <br />existing stormwater pond. <br />Density Transitioning: The proposed plat is adjacent to an existing larger lot residential neighborhood that <br />is zoned R-1 Residential (Rural Developing), and thus, density transitioning would be applicable. However <br />the lot directly adjacent to the subject property is owned by the City and appears to be entirely wetland. As <br />such, this satisfies the density transitioning requirement. <br />Tree Preservation: A detailed tree inventory identifying all significant trees, as defined in City Code <br />Section 117-327 (and outlined below), was submitted. However, the inventory was not overlayed with the <br />grading plan nor were there any indications of which trees were proposed to be removed or preserved. The <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.