My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2005
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:37:36 AM
Creation date
5/27/2005 11:26:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
06/02/2005
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.
/
231
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
C~)uncilmember Strotnmen stated there is a vast difference in proceeding with the eminent <br />domain than with gauging the property owners' interest and negotiating with them in good faith. <br />Il' this is approved the ball is set in motion to acquire the road easement, and it negotiates with a <br />di/¥crcm tone. The City needs to have a more friendly tone and needs to go in asking. The <br />F~r~perty ,)wners should be contacted first and then this plat can be looked at again. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pearson concurred. He. stated he would like to see the road issue resolved prior <br /> moving lbrward on this project. <br /> <br />(~'ity Attorney Goodrich asked what the timeline is on :this application. <br /> <br />/xssociatc Planner Wald replied she believes the timeline for this development is June and the <br />timcI in~: I'~n' the t~,um River development is July. <br /> <br />Mayor Garnet requested the Council to provide input regarding the development, other than the <br />i:~sucs with the road. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen stated she would like to see some idea of what needs to be done with <br />,~l.d C'R 5. She noted there was a point brought up in the Planning Commission discussion about <br />tht:r(: being no definition in the City Code about detached townhomes. That is a point that is well <br />taken, that there is really no standard for detached townhomes, and she would like to work on <br />,~ tanclards. <br /> <br />,';{mncilmember Elvig noted the density is now down to 2.7 units per acre, which is a reasonable <br />density, ~dthough his sense is it is still a little high. He has always had a problem with units 8, 9 <br />and 10. This is a wonderful corridor and greenspace and openings could be created there. He <br />clots m~t have a concern with detached townhouses, and he has grown to admire what these <br />}~ouses c:m look like. He appreciates the work in shortening up the cul-de-sacs, and likes the <br />circle drive. Hc appreciates the work that has been put into this plan. He stated his concerns <br />r~:latc t~) the density, especially with .units 8, 9 and 10, and with the street issues. <br /> <br />A~;sistm-~t Public Works Director Olson inquired what information is being requested from staff <br />regarding t01d CR 5. <br /> <br />Ctmn~zihncmber Strommen replied the <br />'..tpgradcs to old CR 5 is new inibrmation. <br />r~pti,ons. <br /> <br />recommendation from Bolton and Menk about the <br />She would just like general information regarding the <br /> <br />Ma~?r Garnet commented he does not think the county ever turned this road back to the City. <br /> <br />Councilmcmber Elvig requested information with rough calculations of costs involved with the <br />l!p gr;_t(J(:':;. . <br /> <br />City Council/May 10, 2005 <br />Page 17 of 31 <br /> <br />P85 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.