My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 02/08/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2005
>
Agenda - Council - 02/08/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 1:40:16 PM
Creation date
2/7/2005 7:58:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
02/08/2005
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
436
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
Associate Planner Wald noted there are two letters that were distributed to the Commission <br />stating concerns with this development; one of them also addressing the Rum River <br />development. <br /> <br />Commission Input <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked Associate Planner Wald to explain the density calculations. He stated it <br />seems too high with the amount of wetland on the property. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald indicated that in the MUSA area density has to be based on upland. She <br />indicated the density is 2.8 per acre, and there are 13.8 acres of wetland on the property. <br />Associate Planner Wald stated the wetlands 'will have to be delineated during the preliminary plat <br />process, and if the amount of upland is .less than eXpected they may have to remove some units. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated he would challenge how a street can be placed on the boundary line as <br />shown. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald indicated it is 35 feet from the private drive to the boundary line. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt indicated that part of the pUD process is to preserve open space. He stated that <br />for this size parcel you need a minimum of 2.8 acres open space, which is not shown in the <br />sketch plan. He added he is also concerned about the significant changes in topography, and <br />would challenge the wetland calculation. <br /> <br />The applicant, Mark Strandlund, indicated that ialong the private street they have talked with <br />Staff about having berming and landscaping~ etc. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated that one idea behind a PUD is to create open space for the benefit of the <br />development and existing develoPments, not to be used for a density bonus to compensate for <br />site challenges. He indicated he believes a'PUD is being used for density here and he does not <br />believe that is the intent of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudge°n stated the applicant is not getting a density bonus <br />because they are only at 2.8 units per acre; hoWever they need the PUD to have detached <br />townhomes. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt reiterated he does not believe the PUD is being used to provide aesthetic open <br />space for existing and new development. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald noted that the townhome units are detached townhomes, and look and <br />function as a single-family home. She stated there are differences with traffic trips, etc. over <br />what you would see from a regular single family home. <br /> <br />Planning cOmmissiOn/January 6, 2005 <br /> Pa~e 12' of 21 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.