My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 02/09/2006
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
2006
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 02/09/2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 1:42:03 PM
Creation date
2/3/2006 3:13:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
02/09/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
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 Johnson asked how long the cul-de-sac is as showm <br /> <br />Ivh'. Stradlund indicated it is not quite 700 feet. He stated he will continue to ~ve the <br />Meloches an easement to get out of their property into the cul-de-sac. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bmuer asked if that easement would be paved. <br />Mr. Stradlund stated it would not be paved to City standards. He indicated l~e would <br />provide easements and pave a driveway to the Malash property,. <br />Commissioner Brauer noted that this is pushing the limits of a cul-de-sac length, and he <br />may need a variance. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked where the septic would be located. <br /> <br />lVk. 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 <br />R-1 and developed fully, lie asked what they do with this type of septic system at that <br />time. <br /> <br />Mr. Strudlund stated he is actually working on a project now that went to City sewer and <br />the soil has to be treated, it can be done. <br /> <br />Commissioner 3ohnson asked if they would be looking at density transition as they look <br />at these sketch plans. <br /> <br />Associate Planner WaJd stated when the Cluster Ordinance was in the renew process it <br />was assumed that density transition apply, but after further research it does not appear <br />density transition would apply. She stated the reason is that the development is going <br />from R-1 to R-I. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated, however, that the section being developed is higher density than <br />would be allowed on a regular R-I development. He indicated they are getting a higher <br />concentration, which is impacting the adjoining development, and he questions not <br />requiting density transitioning. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer argued that it does, reading the code. He stated this is the question <br />he raised at the last meeting on whether density transitioning in the code for R-1 to R-1 is <br />In affect or R-1 to Rural Developing. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Frolik noted they have to separate density <br />with lot size. <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.