Laserfiche WebLink
9 <br /> <br />Motion by ~.ouncilmember Peterson and seconded by Mayor Gilbertson to adopt <br />Resolution ~4-03-048 approving a Mtxiified Development Program for Development <br />District No. I and a Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing <br />District No. ~. <br /> <br />Motion carrie. Voting Yes: Mayor Gilbertson, Councilmembers Peterson, Beyer, <br />Hardin, and ~jmmerman. Voting No: None. <br />Case g2: ~ Request for Sketch Plan Approval of Townhouses of Rum <br /> · River Hills; Case of Wilbur Dom <br /> <br />Zoning Adm <br />sketch plan 1 <br />Development <br />the following <br />higher densil <br />available, th <br /> <br />[nistrator Fmlik stated that Mr. Dom is requesting Council approval of the <br />or the development of 12 townhouses at Rum River Hills Planned Unit <br />(PUD). She advised that Staff is recommending denial of the sketch plan for <br />~asons: I) The development agreement for Rum River Hills PUD states that <br />Y housing would be permitted within the PUD when sewer and water is <br />~refore, there is no prior commitment of the City to deviate from our <br /> <br />Comprehensi ~e Plan and allow for this development at this time. 2) Also with there being <br />no prior commitment, development of the townhomes conflicts with 4 in 40 density <br />zoning. Fo~ in 40 was reaffirmed as of January 1, 1990, and the City has not deviated <br />from it since~even though receiving many requests to do so. 3) Other developers and <br />property ow ~ng~rs are waiting in the wings, and ff Council approves this variance __fi~.,~m 4 in <br />40, it would sgt a precedent that will be difficult to defend. 4) Metropolitan Counc~ s view <br />of approval i~_ questionable at best, and this could foreseeably endanger Ramsey s future <br />Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) expansion. <br /> <br />Wilbur Dom ~as present and stated that he is only requesting conceptual approval of the <br />townhouses ~p that he can proceed to the public hearing stage of the process. Mr. Dom <br />disagreed tha~ the request was in conflict with the 4 in 4~0 density zoning, explaining that <br />this should ~ considered under the PUD ordinance, not h zoning ordinance, and should be <br />grandfathere~ in. He also added that by putting in townhouses as opposed to <br />condominiuOs, they would actually be decreasing the demand of City services to this <br />project. Mr. Dom stated that the residents of the PUD would prefer townhouses, and he <br />felt that only ~ity Staff opposes this change to the PUD. <br />Mayor Gilber~son stated Staff and Council's main concern was of setting a precedent which <br />would allow ~ther developers/property owners to demand a variance to the 4 in 40 density <br />zoning. : <br /> <br />Mr. Dom sta~ed he felt there was no one who could match his special circumstances <br />wherein a precedent could be applied. <br /> <br />Councilmemi <br />would set a, <br /> <br />Attorney Goo <br /> <br />er Peterson inquired of Attorney Goodrich whether approving this concept <br />ecexient. <br /> <br />flrich advised that the City would have to admit they did a relaxation of the 4 <br /> <br />in 40, though it would probably be difficult to match the Conditions of his case. He added, <br />however, that the bottom line is one would be able to say this was done outside the MUSA. <br /> <br />Mr. Dom po~ ated out that the townhouses would provide less density than the original <br />PUD. <br /> <br />City Council/March 8, 1994 <br /> Page 3 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />