My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 11/09/2004
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2004
>
Agenda - Council - 11/09/2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/24/2025 2:34:07 PM
Creation date
11/5/2004 2:20:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
11/09/2004
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.
/
422
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
The consensus of the Council was to direct staff to proceed with the Assistant Public Works <br />Director's suggestion. <br />Cul-de-sac <br />Mr. Schmidt expressed concern with the impact of the cul-de-sac as proposed. <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson advised staff recommends the full cul-de-sac off of 148`h <br />Avenue NW. He stated staff must recommend a full cul-de-sac and full right-of-way for any <br />subdivision. There are many plats that come into the City;�'and the same requirements must be <br />recommended for all of them. <br />The Council requested direction from staff as to what provisions Could.be allowed in the cul-de- <br />sac requirements if this were to be the Council'reYtion <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson replied statffould advise that the radius be increased to <br />25 or 30 feet, and that the 24 foot segment be a httlePfrthern �. <br />COuncllmember Cook suggested the cul-de-sac be widened so that there=is not a radius and that a <br />setback variance be granted to enable a plow.4m, k to get in and`"store Ii feet of snow, without <br />the requirement of a full cul-de-sac. <br />The consensus of the Council was to direct staff to work:tl the applicant on the cul-de-sac <br />requirements in relation to the radius andf-v ariance } <br />Further discussion: Councilmember Stromrmrt questioned if the findings must be clear <br />regarding the turn around so there is not a precedent , et. Public Works Director Kapler <br />responded in the affirmative: Cattncilmember Colrmented in relation to this, the original <br />intent was to bring the road tht©ugh to Ramsey Boulevard, which is no longer feasible, and <br />concessions are needed to make•therprOpedy usable. <br />KM- <br />Decorative/privaOr fencer <br />Mr. Schmidt indicated he is%.wattling to put the decorative/privacy fence. He does not see the <br />need for all of the required fandsca ing, as much of it will not be seen due to the fence. <br />The consensus of the Councif" was to work with the applicant on the landscaping issues in <br />relation to the privacy fence. <br />Landscaping <br />The consensus of the Council' was to direct Staff to work with the applicant with the placement <br />of taller canopy trees, rather than the required shrubs. <br />Setbacks to residentially zoned properties to the north (bufferyard) <br />The consensus of the Council was to direct staff to work with the applicant in relation to a <br />variance for the bufferyard to the north. <br />City Council Work Session/October 19, 2004 <br />Page 4 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.