My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 02/12/2002
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
2002
>
Minutes - Council - 02/12/2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 11:18:02 AM
Creation date
5/6/2003 10:45:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
02/12/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
Councihnen~ber Anderson noted that it was not an accurate assumption that there would be less <br />development with a planned unit development. <br /> <br />Principal Planner Trudgeon stated that that was correct. <br /> <br />Mr. Bittner stated that his issue is with the language included in the Comprehensive Plan where it <br />clearly states that it is City policy that mixing in a single development requires a planned unit <br />development. Even with the apartment complex being eliminated from the plat, they are still <br />blending low and medium density, which is contradictory to the written policy. As citizens, they <br />understand that a planned unit development can bring in more development. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich inquired as to what language clarification Mr. Bittner was looking for. <br /> <br />Mr. Bittner replied the language on page V-19 under Urban Residential Policy in the <br />Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich inquired if Mr. Bittner cared if the development was done under the <br />planned unit development process or not. <br /> <br />Mr. Bittner replied that he was simply asking the City to follow their written policy. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich explained that the City's ordinance does not require that the <br />development be done as a planned unit development. He inquired as to how the development <br />being done as a planned unit development would change what is being proposed in the way of <br />density. <br /> <br />Mr. Bittner replied that the bottom line is to get back to the planning table and seek a <br />compromise that is more conforming to the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich inquired as to what Mr. Bittner hopes to accomplish. It was his <br />understanding that Mr. Bittner was stating that under a planned unit development there would be <br />less density and thought that is what he was trying to persuade the Council. He inquired as to <br />where the City is failing in his opinion. <br /> <br />Mr. Bittner replied that he felt the City was failing to follow the spirit and words throughout the <br />Comprehensive Plan. He also noted that his other concerns are that there is nothing that would <br />prevent a developer from cutting down every tree within the development and in the <br />Comprehensive Plan it discusses the prese~wation of trees and buffers from wetlands. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated that he felt the resident had a point that they were not <br />following the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />City Council/February 12, 2002 <br /> Page 10 of 33 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.