My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2013
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2013
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:18:24 AM
Creation date
9/17/2013 11:53:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
09/05/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
113
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
Major changes. If the applicant proposes major changes in the final site plan that are inconsistent with the <br />preliminary site plan, these changes can only be made by re -submission of a new preliminary site plan and rezoning <br />application to the zoning administrator, and scheduling of a new public hearing before the planning commission <br />and review again by the council. The following constitute major changes: <br />1. Increase in density. <br />2. Change in architectural design or style. <br />3. Change in type of ownership, private, condominium, or rental. <br />4. Change of more than ten percent in total floor area of the proposed buildings. <br />5. Increase in height of any building. <br />6. Major modification in the landscape plan. <br />7. Reduction in the proposed open space. <br />8. Change in the development schedule. <br />9. Change in the road location or standards. <br />10. Any other changes determined to be major by the council. <br />It is Staffs analysis that a modified two-story (not a full two-story) with split entry, without a full front porch is a <br />change in architectural design or style. The PUD approval noted three (3) single-family models consisting of full, <br />two -stories and a full front porch. The PUD approval only notes that these models meet the City's minimum <br />standards. The PUD approval does not mention that additional architectural standards are required in order to <br />approve the PUD. If the full two-story model with full front porch were an integral part of the approval, it is likely <br />that this would have been expressly stated. The development is not located within The COR District, thereby is not <br />subject to The COR Design Standards, which would have prevented this model. <br />However, to ensure that the City is transparent in its administrative decisions and to ensure that the City remains in <br />compliance with City Code regulations, Staff is forwarding the revised PUD for Public Hearing in order to clarify <br />through a public process that a modified two-story, split -entry dwelling is acceptable to the PUD approval. <br />Funding Source: <br />The Planned Unit Development Amendment for Town Center Gardens Third Addition is being handled as part of <br />normal Staff duties. <br />Staff Recommendation: <br />Staff recommends that the City adopt Resolution #13-09-150 granting Planned Unit Development Amendment for <br />Town Center Gardens Third Addition. <br />Action: <br />Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt Resolution # 13-09-150 granting Planned Unit Development <br />Amendment for Town Center Gardens Third Addition. <br />Attachments <br />Site Location Map <br />Approved Single Family Models <br />Proposed Model <br />Proposed Resolution <br />Form Review <br />Inbox Reviewed By Date <br />Kurt Ulrich Kurt Ulrich 08/29/2013 10:26 AM <br />Chris Anderson Chris Anderson 08/29/2013 03:29 PM <br />Tim Gladhill (Originator) Tim Gladhill 08/29/2013 03:30 PM <br />Form Started By: Tim Gladhill Started On: 08/21/2013 08:06 AM <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.