Laserfiche WebLink
that one new overstory tree would not replace the removal of a mature tree. He asked staff to <br />look at the variables given the topography and existing foliage, and what variance options for <br />landscaping are the most appropriate to provide credit for trees left while still providing <br />screening necessary for compliance. He stated that would provide more clarity. Principal <br />Planner Trudgeon stated the development agreement can require information to be provided for <br />staff's review when the building permits are pulled to identify which trees would be removed and <br />which would remain. He stated when the building permit is pulled, Community Development <br />staff would then have the opportunity to look at the trees that would remain to assure it meets the <br />intent of preservation. He stated he does not know of any other way to accomplish this without <br />staff review of each individual lot. Commissioner Johnson noted there are not many lots so <br />between now and Council consideration, staff could work with the applicant to determine house <br />building pads and the trees that would remain. Chairperson Nixt commented on the benefit of <br />not having arbitrary language. He stated that the maximum number of trees required will <br />probably be exceeded by what is left on the site, but he wants to assure that happens. With <br />regard to the three lots they think may need additional screening, Mr. Packer stated he would <br />prefer to be responsible for planting the landscaping and will fence off the trees to assure they are <br />protected and not damaged during construction. He stated he would prefer to be responsible for <br />that than to have the builder or someone else responsible. Commissioners Johnson and Watson <br />accepted a friendly amendment to the motion to indicate that staff will work with the developer <br />to come up with appropriate supplement to the Tree Preservation Plan and Density Plan prior to <br />Council consideration within the limits discussed. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Johnson, Watson, Brauer, <br />Kociscak, and Reeve. Voting No: None. Absent: None. <br /> <br />Case #6: <br /> <br />Proposed Ordinance to Amend Maximum Number of Permitted Units per <br />Building in R-2 Residential District <br /> <br />Principal Planner Trudgeon explained that City Code states multiple dwelling units (including <br />duplexes, twinhomes, townhomes, and apartment buildings) in the R-2 Residential District shall <br />contain no more than 10 units per building. Allstate Development LLC is requesting an <br />amendment to increase the number of housing units that can be contained in a building located in <br />the R-2 District. Allstate Development would like to construct a townhome development with <br />16-unit buildings as part of the Villas at Meadow Point subdivision. The previous ordinance <br />governing medium density residential district had no cap on the number of units allowed per <br />building. The new high-density district (R-3) has no cap on the number of units per building. <br />He stated there has been a lot of discussion about meeting certain criteria and noted the <br />information provided showing ten unit and sixteen unit buildings. He stated staff is trying to <br />make equal comparisons with regard to medium density of other communities. He noted the <br />range that is considered by other communities and the information from surrounding cities that <br />shows they define medium and high-density areas differently, so it is difficult to find a perfect <br />"apple to apple" comparison. Coon Rapids and Elk River, communities that define medium <br />density similar to Ramsey (7 units per acre), allow for only 8-unit buildings. Previous townhome <br />developments approved in Ramsey have not exceeded 12 units per building. He reviewed a list <br /> <br />Planning Commission/November 7, 2002 <br /> Page 12 of 16 <br /> <br /> <br />