My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 08/12/2008 - Work Session Jt with Planning
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
2008
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 08/12/2008 - Work Session Jt with Planning
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 3:45:52 PM
Creation date
3/8/2013 1:42:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Title
Work Session Jt with Planning
Document Date
08/12/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 />Mr. Bilotta stated that will be part of the implementation, after the Comp Plan is drafted. He <br />noted some sewer lines run into Areas C, D, and E, and planning staff did look at where sewer <br />can be installed while still allowing adequate buffering. Those area are shown as being sewered <br />and kept constant in all Scenarios presented tonight. In expanding into Areas A and B with new <br />neighborhoods, it will be controlled by whether sewer and water is extended. As the Comp Plan <br />comes forward it can give guidance on techniques and thresholds because the City needs to <br />control the financial side and property owners need assurance of when they can do something. <br />He stated they will try to clarify that throughout the Comp Plan text. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec noted the scenarios included three small commercial nodes. He stated there has <br />been discussion about developing a commercial area at the comer of Baugh Street and 181 st <br />Avenue, in the northwest comer. He asked how that would impact the proposed commercial <br />node to the south at 173rd. <br /> <br />Mr. Slotterback stated it is not really a commercial node but higher density residential <br />development. He advised that the density of a residential neighborhood of that size would not <br />support a commercial node in that location. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig asked about developable acreages, noting the City had a concept for one <br />acre large lots and thought people would build to one side or the other to allow for lot splits and <br />infill development. Councilmember Elvig stated he thinks a significant amount of infill could <br />take on the density load and would create more walkable areas that are closer to the Town <br />Center. He cautioned that it sounds like the consultant is trying to put together a Plan to attract <br />developers, because it is the easiest development, instead of promoting infill development areas <br />that may be more challenging. Councilmember Elvig stated the other part discussed is that if the <br />land is not developed as single-family then it would go back to 2.5 acre lots. He stated that he <br />has heard discussions and debate that 2.5 acre lots do not work. He stated that if it is known it <br />does not work and results in the need for infill, he does not think it should be included in this <br />Comp Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Bilotta explained that additional detail has not been developed into the Scenarios and 2.5 <br />acres was used to do density calculations. If using smaller lots, there will be more density but <br />Citywide it doesn't make that much difference because even if using one acre in rural residential, <br />for every unit of housing it uses about five percent of the land. He stated if there is a desire for <br />more rural residential they will address clustering and ghost platting. Now they are looking more <br />at whether it should be rural residential of some fashion or whether sewers should be run into <br />these areas. He stated that there are a lot of details that are not yet included at this phase. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Miller stated it was looked at whether those infill areas are <br />appropriate or ready for redevelopment and staff felt they are not within this time frame. <br /> <br />Mr. Bilotta asked whether the City should identify redevelopment in a neighborhood without <br />first asking property owners. He stated they did show redevelopment in one area because the <br />neighborhood expressed interest and sewer could be extended into that area. He stated if sewer <br />can be extended and the neighborhood wants it, then it should be looked at. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / August 12, 2008 <br />Page 5 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.