My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/1999
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
1999
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/1999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:18:34 AM
Creation date
9/16/2003 10:38:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
12/07/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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
Monthly Status Report <br /> <br />Frolik <br /> <br />9/23/99 <br /> <br />More discussion: Mr. Scheib questioned if the two criteria in <br />question were fixed, would the Council approve of the plan? <br />Councilmember Hendriksen replied that the issue of a PUD and <br />the lower requirements than the current plan is one problem, and if <br />it could be articulated in a way that rezoning would be required, <br />one problem would be solved. In the case of the Pulte <br />development, he has head the Mayor say he has seen plats for the <br />property that could not meet the density because of the amount of <br />buildable land so a plan was submitted with a higher density. The <br />way the draft plan is presented, it leaves it open for the developer <br />to say he is entitled to the maximum and can make his land <br />smaller and more units. The development would achieve a density <br />figure that they would not be able to achieve if single family <br />homes were built. Mr. Scheib questioned why a developer <br />wouldn't be entitled to the maximum density. Councilmember <br />Hendriksen replied that in the Pulte Development they felt they <br />were entitled to the maximum density and were going to achieve <br />the density by constructing 8-plexes. Mr. Scheib replied that the <br />Council has th~ opportunity to approve the plan and that the 4.0 <br />units per acre is a reasonable density. Councilmember Hendriksen <br />stated that he would like 3.0 units per acre for all developments. <br />Councilmember Anderson replied that a PUD should allow a <br />slightly higher density than a single-family development. Mr. <br />Scheib explained that to meet 3.0 units per acre, townhomes may <br />need to be constructed in some areas. A developer can currently <br />come in with a PUD for a R-1 single family area, but in a mixed <br />residential situation it would be more honest stating it could be a <br />number of different types of housing. Councilmember Hendriksen <br />replied that he will accept the term "mixed residential" if it <br />articulates that it means single family residential unless it is done <br />with a PUD and approved by the City. Councilmember <br />Zimmerman questioned what can be done to help protect existing <br />single family residents. Mr. Scheib replied zoning the adjacent <br />property single family housing only and requiring a certain lot size <br />and then allowing the 1,000 foot buffer to build the higher density. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.