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
Commissioner Johnson asked what the' net acreage is for the site. <br /> <br />The applicant, Nod Loabneh stated it was 8.7 acres. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudge°n noted all of the figures need to be verified; and if <br />the calculations are wrong, the plan will have to be adjusted. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked what the process'is for Staff if someone comes to them and says <br />they want to do townhomes and apply for a PUD. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald advised that City Code says a developer has a right to ask for a PUD, so <br />Staff is required to review the plans based on that request. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked if the City was required to grant the PUD if someone asks. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated they are not, however, there are criteria that have to be followed <br />for approval or denial. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt indicated when he previously stated the PUD was being used as a density <br />bonus; he really meant a development bonus. He stated he did not see any 'but, for' being <br />shown. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson indicated this could come back <br />standard lot sizes if the aPplicant wanted to try it. <br /> <br />as a single-family development with <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt disagreed, stating the developer could not meet setbacks and lot size <br />requirements. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson asked if the screening and transition issue was the same for this <br />development as the previous one. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald stated they were not subject to density transition in this case. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt commented that if the apPlicant needs the townhouse classification to put this <br />many homes in, they really are getting a development bonus because the applicant could not get <br />this density otherwise. <br /> <br />Nod Loabneh stated he would also request action so this goes to the City Council. He indicated <br />that as for the wetland delineation, they have certified engineers that delineated this; it is not a <br />number they pulled out of a hat. He stated that concerning kids, detached townhomes usually do <br />not mean kids. He indicated they are single-family homes, but there is little space between <br />homes, and most mothers would .not have their children here. He stated this is definitely a <br />market for empty nesters, many of whom live here only half the year. <br /> <br />Planning CommiSsion/January 6, 2005 <br /> Page 16 of 21 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.