Laserfiche WebLink
what hag been pregented ig the begt they can do then he guggegted that Council vote in favor of <br />the development, but if any of the Councilmembers felt that through collaborative efforts there is <br />more that can be done then he respectfully asked that they delay the decision and work together <br />to make it the best it can be. To him it felt that the interests of the developer were being put <br />above and beyond the citizens of Ramsey. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak inquired if they were to develop the property under the planned unit <br />development process wouldn't the developer receive credit for the areas that are zoned a higher <br />density. <br /> <br />Principal Planner Trudgeon explained that if the property is rezoned as being requested by the <br />developer, 304 units would be permitted on the property, and the developer is currently <br />proposing 88 single family homes, 91 townhomes, and the creation of a higher density lot for a <br />senior apartment complex. If the land were developed under the planned unit development <br />process, the developer would be allowed 345 units and they are currently proposing 179 units. <br /> <br />Mr. Bittner replied that based on the plat that was submitted to the Planning Commission in <br />January is where he was taking his numbers. He noted that his issue is with the language that is <br />included in the Comprehensive Plan pertaining to mixed uses within a single development, <br />which the proposed development does. <br /> <br />Councihnember Kurak would agree with Mr. Bittner if the entire parcel was designated as single <br />family residential, but the piece of property being discussed could be developed as three different <br />sites. She did note that she would like the language in the Comprehensive Plan clarified. <br /> <br />Councihnember Hendriksen stated that it seemed to him that the City is proposing to do <br />something that is contrary to what is written in the Comprehensive Plan. The reason he is <br />concerned is that there were a lot of concerns voiced about the adopted Comprehensive Plan that <br />were addressed through the language and if they are going to disregard the language the first time <br />an issue is raised then that is a problem. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that he would have to review the language before giving a legal <br />opinion. <br /> <br />Mr. Black stated that it is not uncommon for comprehensive plans to have general policy <br />statements that are sometimes in conflict to zoning ordinances. He stated that a comprehensive <br />plan is meant as a planning document and he made those statements based on 25 years of <br />planning experience. The policy that was being discussed allows for single family zoned areas to <br />include mixed use so if they were requesting townhomes within the single family zoning, then <br />they would have to go through the planned unit development process. He explained that the <br />proposed development fits the density requirements and the land use lines included on the land <br />use map in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the City's zoning code does not require them to <br />go through the planned unit development process. <br /> <br />City Council/February 12, 2002 <br /> Page 8 of 33 <br /> <br /> <br />