My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/01/2020
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2020
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/01/2020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 11:06:08 AM
Creation date
10/8/2020 11:14:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
10/01/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
Commissioner Gengler aye <br />Commissioner Woestehoff aye <br />Commissioner Johnson aye <br />Commissioner Anderson aye <br />Commissioner VanScoy aye <br />Chairperson Bauer aye <br /> <br />Motion Carried. <br /> <br />7. COMMISSION BUSINESS <br /> <br />7.01: Review Sketch Plan for Riverstone South; Case of Capstone Homes <br /> <br />7.02: Review Revised Sketch Plan for Hunt Addition, Case of Platinum Land (Project 20- <br />105) <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl presented the Staff Report stating that staff recommends directing <br />the applicant to develop a preliminary plat incorporating staff comments and working with the <br />adjacent neighbor to allow the neighboring property to develop in the future, per the property <br /> <br /> <br />Commission Business <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove stated that she has concerns with Lot 14. She commented that the <br />easement would be close to where a home would sit, and the property owner would assume they <br />own more land than they do. She noted that she also has a concern with Lot 25. She stated that <br />homeowners do not always understand how an easement works. <br /> <br />Senior Planner McGuire Brigl stated that staff is also concerned with Lots 14, 25, 49, 55 and 56. <br />She stated that there are other properties in the city that have similar easements that have caused <br />confusion and multiple calls to City staff. She stated that she would prefer to see 80 feet of <br />buildable area for lots without the easement. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove commented that she believes that the lots would be more saleable in <br />that manner and would create a better product that would benefit the developer in the end. <br /> <br />Chairperson Bauer commended the developer for working with the City and the intent to not <br />rezone the property. He believed that with these modifications the developer could come back <br />with a sketch that would address these issues and continue this moving forward. <br /> <br />Jason Bebeau, applicant, referenced the lots that were mentioned by Councilmember Musgrove <br />and staff and commented that when people are purchasing lots in a development, every single lot <br />is 80 feet wide and they are aware of what they are purchasing. He asked why they would want to <br />lose additional lots when every lot is 80 feet wide and noted that all four corners of the lot are <br /> <br />Planning Commission/ September 3, 2020 <br />Page 11 of 15 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.