Laserfiche WebLink
( ',omnfissioner Van Scoy stated there is a difference of opinion on the sidewalk. He indicated he <br />l~els it would be a possibility with the potential change to the ordinance on driveway length to <br />incorporate sidewalks without altering the current driveway length proposed. He stated he would <br />lil~e to see sidewalks on Horton 2 and 5. <br /> <br />(:hairperson Nixt indicated he would like to see something running down the east side of Horton <br />and thc west side of Horton 4. He stated he thinks there will be less traffic on Horton 2 and 5. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson indicated he would restate his mofibnto ask, Staff to continue to review <br />pedestrian traffic and to address safe~ concerns for pede a~d~e possibili~ of increasing <br />pedeslrmn movement through the center of the devel~gm~n*:: ss~oner Van Scoy stated he <br />would second that amendment to the motion. ,~ 3~ :?:~5,: <br /> :: ; ,h~ "~7..:: - ........ ~ .... ~'.: <br /> <br />(:ommunity Development Director Trudgeon ~:te~::8:~:~::thought'~>W~::t~at::~:~ate roads <br />(.ould sc~ x e as that access, but he ~s heann dffferen~ tom h~ .......... :: :~:~ <br /> <br />r indicated the in the own iend y, and he see <br />lhis as inconsistent with that goal. He stated YPU can go t6: ~rea and find sidewalks <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairper~i~>ii::iNi'X~'i'C 9~ers Johnson, Brauer, Levine, Van <br />:c,,~y, and Watson. Voting No: None.-Absent: Commlssmn~:Shepherd. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Jonson, seconded :::: ' ~:::~:~'~:~ ' <br /> by:C0mmlssiOher Levlne, to recommend that Ci~ <br />(:o until recommend that the CiW, COUncil approve:the ~imina~ plat of Ramsey Town Center <br />c?' Addition subject to compliance~ith CiW sth~:R~:~er dated April 15, 2005. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chai~erson Nixt, Commissioners Jonson, Levine, Brauer, Van <br />:;coy, and Watson. Voting No: N0ne[' Absent: Commissioner Shepherd. <br /> <br />Case ~4: Requkst for Sketch Pla~:R~i~w of Marigold Pond; Case of Oakwood Land <br /> DevelOpment <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler advised that Oakwood Land Development has applied for sketch plan <br />review ~o develop 102 urban'single-family residential lots on the property generally located on <br /> th <br />I lighway 47 at 160 Lane NW. She indicated Oakwood Land Development is proposing to <br />creme 102 urban single-family lots on 58 acres on Highway 47 and 160th Lane NW. She stated <br />[he property is currently located in the R-1 Rural Developing district, with a minimum density of <br />I lot per 2.5 acres. She added the development of the property within municipal sewer and water <br />will :¢quiro a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which will be considered at the preliminary plat <br />stage. She stated if the property is approved for development with urban services, the net density <br />allowed under R-1 is three units per acre. She indicated the sketch plan reflects a gross density <br />ot' 1.75 units per acre. She advised that all of the proposed lots appear to meet urban single- <br /> <br />Planning Commission/April 21, 2005 <br /> Page 10 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />