My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 06/13/2000
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2000
>
Agenda - Council - 06/13/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 1:44:10 PM
Creation date
7/28/2003 2:53:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
06/13/2000
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.
/
326
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
Councilmember Hendr/ksen stated it is not yet known what the Plan or those ordinances will <br />look like. He stated he regrets considering removing th_is property from the moratorium since the <br />Council does not have answers to the questions being asked and he feels the Council is being <br />punished for not having those answers. He stated he believes progress has been made and this <br />proposal is more acceptable to the neighborhood than the or/ginal plan but he does not believe <br />enough has been achieved to move forward. Councilmernber Hendriksen stated many meetings <br />have been held and sometimes it just takes time to do-things. He stated he knows Mr. BuIow is <br />working very hard on this project. <br /> <br />Mr. Bulow stated his main concern is if the lot is separated, they do not lose the benefit of <br />averaging their site density in the future. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson noted the application is for a PUD which can include a lot of different <br />uses and the lot, if separated, would still be part of the same PUD. She stated 140 apartments <br />does sound better than the earlier stated numbers. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated Rivers Bend Plaza has expressed concern and he understands this may not <br />be a good commercial site due to access. He stated he liked the idea of commercial originally <br />but, due to access, understands that may not be the best option. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen noted there are other types of commercial uses that do not generate <br />as much traffic as a restaurant. He asked about an office warehouse use and added that he is not <br />ready to consider a rezoning. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated he believes a rezoning is premature. <br /> <br />Mr. Bulow stated they would be willing to separate the southerly part if the PUD agreement <br />allows them the benefit to average the density of the entire site, as is stated in the ordinance. He <br />stated if the Comprehensive Plan is approved as intended with this area as high density <br />residential and the zoning is 15 units per acre, at that point, they would not need to apply for a <br />PUD since it would be changed to high density residential. He asked what the end density would <br />be for that apartment site, noting the current zoning ordinance allows the average of the entire <br />site. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated he is not sure if all of that will happen <br /> <br />Councilmember Connolly asked Mr. Bulow if he would be willing to leave off the apartment site <br />if, when developed, the amount allowed for development is considered as one parcel with an <br />averaging. <br /> <br />Mr. Bulow stated that is correct. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frotik stated an outlot could be platted as part of the PUD <br />and an average overall density identified for the entire PUD. <br /> <br />City Council/April 25, 2000 <br /> Page 20 of 29 <br /> <br /> -118- <br /> <br /> I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.