Laserfiche WebLink
Case #7 Discuss Additional Development Standards for the R-1 Rural. Developing <br /> District; Case of Ci~ of Ramsey .-~' <br /> <br /> Presentation ' <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler advised that at their May 11, 2004 meeting the'City Council adopted a <br />90-day moratorium on all subdivision and platting in the R-1 Rural Developing District.. She <br />indicated the moratorium is effective June 14, 2004 through September 12,'~004. The purPOse of <br />the moratorium is to provide time for the Planning CommissiOn <br />additional development standards for the Rural Developing Di§trict. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geister indicated a major impetus for the development morator/um is concern <br />that the current 2.5-acre minimum lot size in the Rur~fil Developing district does not adequately <br />plan for future urban development. She stated'the City has. processed several 2.5 acre <br />subdivisions in the past couple of years, and there'is conCern"':that additional 2.5 acre <br />developments may complicate planning for the possible eXtensiOn of urban services beyond their <br />current location. She indicated the City Council has directed'the:planning Commission and Staff <br />to consider new development standards for the Rural Develbping district'::ithat address these <br />concerns. · ' .::. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler explained the~e' are tWO general types of ~6bdivision. standards that <br />may be used to preserve land for future urban' deve!c~pment; cluster/open space standards and <br />ghost platting. She stated under clU§ter-type ordinances, ~the malts permitted by the underlying <br />zoning are clustered on smaller lots on :one portion of the property, with the remainder typically <br />left as one parcel. She advised under ghost platting, current and future lots, streets, and parks <br />may be laid out on a concept drawing during the development review process. The formality of <br />this process can vary,:' . <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler stated the City of Ramsey currently requires a re-subdivision plan for <br />development outside of the current urban service area, but this plan has no formal bearing on <br />future development on the property.. She indicated the City of Inver Grove Heights has a <br />requirement for an. Urban Subdivision-Overlay for rural subdivisions that are 10 acres or larger. <br />This requirement is similar to the City of Ramsey's subdivision plan requirement, in that it does <br />not formalize requirements for future urban lots or control the placement of houses on the new <br />rural:, lots. She stated this is a general discussion, and they are looking for feedback. <br /> <br />Commission Input <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer indicated that having come from a city that went through a similar <br />process; he thinks they need to look at this in a different way. He stated the Center of Urban <br />Affairs has been looking at urban sprawl and ways to alleviate it, and gave some rationale. He <br />stated the old Metropolitan Council plan was to draw a line and say you cannot build outside that <br />line; however that was self-defeating because land within that line went up. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer stated in Portland they are doing something where the developers pay the <br />true cost of development. He indicated in Rarnsey they charge a park dedication fee with the <br />rationale that the development is paying for their own parks, but that could apply in other things. <br />He stated that eve~ time they build a new school it is because of more development. He <br /> <br />5O <br /> <br />Planning Commission/June 3, 2004 <br /> Page 12 of 17 <br /> <br /> <br />