My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/13/2000
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
2000
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/13/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2025 9:59:07 AM
Creation date
9/8/2003 2:56:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
01/13/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
156
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
<br />Mayor Gamec replied that changes can be done by the amendment process, <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson noted that there will always be an interference with someone's R-I <br />zoning, because less then one percent is allowed for mixed residential use in all of Ramsey. <br /> <br />Mr. Scheib stated that the preferred solution to the confusion would be to continue to try and <br />explain the difference between the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendliksen replied that the Council knows the difference between the zoning <br />ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, He explained that he does not want to rely on the zoning <br />to protect the Charter, but the protection to come from the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Scheib questioned why the current wording wouldn't protect their concerns. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen replied because the Pulte development would meet the criteria. He <br />explained that areas that are zoned R-l need to be detached single family homes on similar size <br />lots, and that when there is rationale to support rezoning by a P.U,D, a developer could go <br />through the process which would require approval by the majority of the Council, which gives <br />the City leverage over the developer, but would allow the opportunity for some higher usage. <br /> <br />Mr. Scheib questioned what criteria Councilmember Hendriksen would require for a P .U.D. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen replied that he would have some ideas, but had not thought them <br />through. <br /> <br />Mr. Scheib stated that he has thought them through and included them In the draft <br />Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen replied that the criteria fails. <br /> <br />City CounciVSeptember 23,1999 <br />Page 4 of7 <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Scheib reviewed the mixed residential performance criteria. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated that he had a problem with criteria #2 including the wording <br />"higher density" and suggested that the wording be removed. <br /> <br />Mr, Scheib responded that higher density housing refers to townhomes in a P.U.D and trying to <br />refer to anything other than single family detached housing. He questioned if it should read <br />"anything other then single family detached housing". <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen replied that he is okay with the wording "higher density", but has a <br />problem that the Pulte development would pass criteria #2. <br /> <br />Consensus was reached by the Council that criteria #3 was okay, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.