My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 04/25/2000
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2000
>
Agenda - Council - 04/25/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 1:42:28 PM
Creation date
9/8/2003 10:33:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
04/25/2000
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.
/
408
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
Community Development Director Frolik replied that the Council has reviewed the project on a <br />couple different occasions and directed Mr. Bulow to proceed with preliminary plat. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson stated that the density in the apartment portion of the development is <br />much higher than what was intended at 15 units per acre. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik replied that a PUD allows for the density to be <br />calculated over the entire site. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson stated that she did not think the Council envisioned more than any 15 <br />units per acre on a site. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec replied that the Council made a decision that would allow for the densitY to be <br />calculated over the entire site with a PUD. <br /> <br />Councilmember Connolly stated that if the City is going to require a lower density in the buffer <br />zone that it is legitimate to allow for an increase in density in another location on the site. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen replied that the bigger questions is that when a developer has to give <br />up density in one location are they entitled to a higher density in another location. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman requested that the Council focus on reviewing the alternative site <br />plans being, presented and discuss the issue of density at a later date. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen questioned how the Council can resolve the traffic issue without <br />addressing the density issue first. <br /> <br />Mr. Bulow inquired if the Council would prefer 8-plexes and 16-plexes built on the site rather <br />than the proposed townhomes. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson replied that she would prefer to avoid the higher density. <br /> <br />Mr. Bulow explained that the site is currently zoned commercial and by changing the density to <br />high density residential the value of the land is decreased and if the Council reduces the density · <br />from high density to medium density there would be a serious conflict because the property . <br />owners would then want to keep the property zoned commercial. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson suggested shifting some of the density so that the apartment site meets <br />the 15 units per acre. <br /> <br />Mr, Bulow replied that to meet the 15 units an acre for an apartment complex the unit would <br />have to be very small and would not make sense to construct. He stated that he understands the <br />communities concerns regarding subsidized housing, but explained the apartments are planned to <br />be a senior complex and a high rental complex with rent ranging from $900-$1,000 per month. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that the Council directed Mr. Bulow to move forward with the project and <br />now the Council is giving him a different direction. In his opinion, the proposed development is <br /> <br /> 221 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.