My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/2020
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2020
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/2020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 11:04:25 AM
Creation date
4/2/2020 2:53:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
02/06/2020
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.
/
216
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
Regular Planning Commission 6. 2. <br />Meeting Date: 02/06/2020 <br />By: Chloe McGuire Brigl, Community <br />Development <br />Information <br />Title: <br />REVISED - PUBLIC HEARING: Review Preliminary Plat for Garden View Villas (DC Townhomes); Project <br />19-136 <br />Purpose/Background: <br />This case was revised on 02/03/2020 to add a Letter of Opposition. <br />The purpose of this case is to review a Preliminary Plat Application for a twenty-three (23) lot medium density <br />residential, detached townhome development on the property known as Outlots E and D, Town Center Gardens 3rd <br />Addition (the "Subject Property"). The property is north of 147th Lane NW and east of Center Street. The site is <br />currently located in the R-2 Residential District and is guided as Medium Density Residential in the Comprehensive <br />Plan. DC Ramsey, LLC (the "Applicant") is proposing a development that generally meets all the requirements of <br />the R-2 Residential District, with guidance on density transitioning as outlined below. <br />Notification: <br />The City sent a mailing via Standard US Mail to property owners within 700 feet of the Subject Property, as noted <br />in the Anoka County Property Records, notifying them of the public hearing. <br />Observations/Alternatives: <br />Summary <br />The Subject Property is located in the R-2 Residential District, which allows for detached villas, attached <br />townhomes, or multifamily units. The Applicant is proposing twenty-three (23) detached villas with 50 foot wide <br />lots, which meets the requirements of the R-2 Residential (Detached Villa) District regulations. The allowed density <br />in the R-2 Residential District is 4 - 7 units per acre, and the proposal is approximately 4.1 units per acre. Please see <br />the attached review letter for additional information on bulk zoning standards. <br />Density Transitioning <br />The Subject Property is located in the R-2 Residential District. Surrounding properties are located in The COR <br />District (south and west), R-2 Residential District (east), and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) District(north). <br />The PUD to the north is a unique PUD that was guided as a "live -work" neighborhood, which allows for <br />home -based businesses and more commercial -type uses in the southern portions of the properties abutting the <br />Subject Property. The underlying zoning for the PUD is the R-1 Residential (Rural Developing) District, which is <br />the large -lot single family zoning district on private well and septic systems. <br />There is no density transitioning required between the R-2 Residential District and The COR District. However, <br />typically there would be density transitioning required between the R-2 Residential District and the R-1 Residential <br />(Rural Developing) District. The City Code does allow flexibility to density transitioning for unique situations such <br />as these. After review with the City Attorney, the City has the ability to be flexible with the density transitioning <br />requirements when abutting a PUD District. The underlying density transition standards would require a 45 feet of <br />buffer. Because the area abutting the Subject Property is largely wetland (encumbered by drainage and utility <br />easement, and unbuildable) and then large out -buildings which allow for commercial uses, Staff does not feel it is <br />reasonable to enforce the 45 foot buffer requirement. Staff is open to suggestions from the Planning Commission; <br />however, the Applicant proposed a 20 foot buffer, which is the required rear yard setback in the R-2 Residential <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.