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
Commissioner Brauer noted that this is pushing the limits of a cul-de-sac length, and he may <br />need a wn'iance. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked where the septic would be located. <br /> <br />Mi'. Stradlund indicated it would be on the northern property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy indicated that at sometime the City Council expects this will be R-1 and <br />dcvclopcd t'ully, lte asked what they do with this type of septic system at that time. <br /> <br />Mr. Stradlund stated he is actually working on a project now that went to City sewer and the soil <br />has to be treated, it can be done. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson asked if they would be looking at density transition as they look at these <br />sketch plans. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald stated when the Cluster Ordinance was in the renew process it was <br />assumed that density transition apply, but after further research it does not appear density <br />transition wonld apply. She stated the reason is that the development is going from R-1 to R-1. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated, however, that the section being developed is higher density than would <br />bc allowed on a regular R-1 development. He indicated they are getting a higher concentration, <br />which is impacting the adjoining development, and he questions not requiring density <br />transitioning. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer argued that it does, reading the code. He stated this is the question he <br />raised at the last meeting on whether density transitioning in the code for R-1 to R-1 is in affect <br />or R-1 to Rural Developing. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Frolik noted they have to separate density with lot <br />siz(2. <br /> <br />Chairpcrson Nixt asked how that helps the owner of Lot 1 or Lot 2 to the east. He stated he <br />understands the intent of the ordinance is to buffer from a greater number of units behind existing <br />development. <br /> <br />Associate t'lanner Wald suggested that before preliminary plat they can work with the developer <br />to screen the neighbors and provide more buffer. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer commented the writing of the interim policy is still ambiguous for R-1 to <br />Rural l)cvcloping parcels. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated they have to look at this as R-1 to Rural Developing and not R-1 to R-1. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/May 5, 2005 <br /> Page 6 of 19 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.