My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 06/27/2006
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2006
>
Agenda - Council - 06/27/2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 3:05:39 PM
Creation date
6/23/2006 2:04:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
06/27/2006
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.
/
404
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
worked out. He has been told ponds would not be required, but he was under the <br />impression everything must be ponded with multi-family housing. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski advised water cannot be discharged without water quality <br />treatment and volume constraints. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated from his point of view it would be difficult to approve this <br />application. The public road is located adjacent to Nowthen Boulevard; without <br />elevations that would show some boulevard tree plantings to separate the service road <br />from Nowthen Boulevard, the plat would include Nowthen Boulevard, a bituminous path, <br />and a public road all in succession, which would not be an aesthetic setup. <br /> <br />Mr. Gary Stritesky stated they could have proposed multi-unit structures, but they tried <br />not to do that because there are already too many of those in the City. Because of the <br />uniqueness of the property they wanted to give a unique, different product. He explained <br />if the road is moved to the west it would eliminate the large bushes that are currently <br />there. ' '. <br /> <br />Mr. Aaron Stritesky stated they are trying to provide something new and different. He <br />explained putting the road between the townhomes and CR 5 separates the townhomes <br />from the county road. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bmuer stated there is currently not anything in City Code that permits <br />detached townhomes. He has been pointing this out for two years, and is beginning to <br />lose his patience. Staff can indicate that detached townhomes are permitted by a PUD, <br />but even if that were to be agreed to, when looking to the R-2 standards, which <br />essentially they are trying to follow, the detached townhomes do not even come close. In <br />order to approve more detached townhomes in the City they need to be included in the <br />Code. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Dalnes indicated a draft of detached townhome standards was <br />discussed at the Council work session last week. There are only two or three differences <br />in the standards of detached versus attached townhomes. The 1>,-2 standards are an <br />acceptable way to analyze detached townhomes, the only trouble is the side yard setback, <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer suggested the possibility of tabling this application until the <br />detached townhome standards are in place. He explained he does not have a problem <br />with utilizing a PUD or with detached townhomes on this property; his concern is that <br />there are not rules in place for detached townhomes. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Dairies indicated all of the cities she has researched; detached <br />townhomes are processed by PUD's. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated detached townhomes are needed in the City, and are a definite <br />improvement over the row townhomes. However, this site is challenging and more time <br />is needed with a concept plan for the entire area so it is not developed in pieces. <br /> <br />-231- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.