Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Counci I Meeting Minutes <br /> <br />-8- <br /> <br />July 30, 1973 <br /> <br />the Village, giving more "lasting quality" to the community. <br /> <br />Crichton asked the following questions and points of concern: <br /> <br />I. Will a dam be provided between the two ponds? <br /> <br />Answer - Yes. <br /> <br />2. Are they to be kept at levels indicated on the plans? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Answer - Approximately, yes. There will be adequate <br />run-off In the area to maintain these levels; <br />after these levels are reached, they will <br />run out. <br /> <br />3. Some of the townhouses exceed tho 150 foot maximum <br />length permitted by ordinance. Other than the possible <br />creation of a solid, monotonous appearance, which you <br />say would not occur because of the topography of ~he <br />land, I would like to suggest that there may possibly <br />be other reasons why a buitding exceeding this length <br />may be undesirable. . <br /> <br />4. If the site Is not suitable for single-family residential <br />lots, why do you Include more housing units than would be <br />permitted for slngle-fami Iy homes? It appears the density <br />Is over the 3.1 units/acre Indicated. <br /> <br />AnSWer - If the land were flat, we could develop slngle- <br />family lots; there are economic and aesthetic <br />benefits to be derived from cluster housing. If <br />single-family lots were developed on this site, <br />houses would have to be $60,000 to $65,000; <br />townshous~s can be provided at $37,000 to $50,000. <br /> <br />5. Road widths, as proposed. do not meet the minimum ordinance <br />standards. Why are you proposing a 50' right of way with <br />a 5' easement along each side, rather than a 60' right of <br />way? <br /> <br />Answer - the topography will permit a flat 50' right of way <br />plus 5' easement on each side, which would not <br />necessarily be a flat right of way, but would'permlt <br />travel by emergency vehicles, If necessa~y. <br /> <br />6. You are requesting a road slope approximately double the <br />slope permitted by ordinance. Wi I I this be practical to <br />maintain, and how dangerous is it to exce~d the 4% grade? <br /> <br />Answer - We can probably redesign the street to reduce <br />the grade. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />7. How do you plan to resolve the arbitrary boundary line <br />situation with Ramsey County? Once the parcel of land <br />is counted as part of the development, It cannot be <br />sold, and the Village cannot permit two uses on the same <br />parcel of land. <br /> <br />Answer - In establishing density, we wi II be happy to <br />exclude this controversial area from the develop- <br />ment. <br /> <br />B. It appears that some of the "private" roads in the develop- <br />ment would serve more housln~ units than does any existing <br />Village-owned street. They seem to be .collector" streets <br />and, as such, must be dedicated to the Village. <br /> <br />Answer - Gustafson said that he, as a landscape planner, <br />considers the streets to be accurately defined <br />in the proposed plan. <br /> <br />-B- <br />