My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 06/14/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2005
>
Agenda - Council - 06/14/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 1:51:00 PM
Creation date
6/10/2005 2:31:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
06/14/2005
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.
/
571
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
Mark Stl:adlund, Shade Tree Construction, indicated they feel they have worked through <br />concerns raised during sketch plan review and have made considerable changes. He stated they <br />have worked within the PUD to benet~t Ramsey by protecting the wetlands, adding trails, and <br />working within the clensity Ramsey allows. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt noted Staff had mentioned a concept plan had been drafted with straight single <br />family lots. <br /> <br />Mr. Stradluncl stated he does not have it with him, but believes it was 34-35 lots. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer stated he is not totally comfortable with this, but unlike the previous case <br />he thinks the applicant has at least listened to the Planning Commission's comments. <br /> <br />Commissioner Shepherd asked about the areas where it was suggested three lots be reduced to <br />two. <br /> <br />Mr. Stractlund stated lots g, 9 and 10 were left because it actually helps the road. He indicfi, ted <br />the three in the corner were left in, however density transitioning was implemented. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated he still dislikes the private road, but does not see an opportunity to get <br />rid el" it. lie askecl how much of an elevation change there would be. <br /> <br />Jim Napier, Midwest Smweyors, inclicaced the retaining wall is four feet high with spruce trees on <br />top. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked how they would transition from the retaining wall to just a berm. <br /> <br />Mr. Napier indicated they have to provide a low point in the berm to allow excess run-off from <br />the neighbors, and will then increase it again off the retaining wall, <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt a~kcd how they would work with the natural landscaping to deal with the <br />elevation changes. <br /> <br />Mr. Napier stated thc3, will try and work with the natural landscaping, but have to work with a <br />5% slope lnaximum, st) they may have to adjust it in some area. <br /> <br />Commissionc,' I3raLtcr stated they are looking at a 3,354 square foot size on the detached <br />townhomcs, which is even less than the previous development. He asked what justification the <br />applicant could provide for requesting this deviation. <br /> <br />Mr. Stracllund indicated the main thing they can stress is they are protecting the wetlands by <br />making that area association maintained rather than owned by private homeowners. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked il' t'hc density is based on net acreage. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/April 7, 2005 <br /> Page 18 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.