My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 09/28/2021
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2021
>
Agenda - Council - 09/28/2021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2025 3:14:00 PM
Creation date
10/8/2021 9:16:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
09/28/2021
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.
/
754
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
Commission Business <br />Chairperson Bauer suggested the Commission begin with the requested rezoning. <br />Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner VanScoy, to recommend that <br />City Council adopt Ordinance #21-19 Approving a Zoning Amendment to Rezone Portions of the <br />Subject Property from R-3 Residential (High Density) to R-2 Residential (Medium Density). <br />A roll call vote was performed: <br />Commissioner Gengler aye <br />Commissioner VanScoy aye <br />Commissioner Walker aye <br />Commissioner Anderson aye <br />Commissioner Peters aye <br />Chairperson Bauer aye <br />Motion Carried. <br />Chairperson Bauer noted that the second request is related to the preliminary plat and asked staff <br />to display the list of contingencies that were included in the staff report. <br />Commissioner VanScoy stated that he is a little confused on how the transition can have common <br />ownership and how it is configured with the lot. He stated that the applicant stated that the <br />transition area is currently part of the lot. <br />City Planner Anderson stated that as the applicant proposed, the density transition corridor is part <br />of the individual lots, but City Code states that corridor should be held common ownership, such <br />as a separate entity like an HOA. He confirmed that changes would be needed in order to meet <br />that requirement of the Code. He stated that each individual lot should meet the lot width and area <br />requirements, separate from the density transition area. <br />Commissioner VanScoy commented that if the layout is configured in that manner, the density <br />corridor should not impact the lot depth. <br />City Planner Anderson stated that if laid out in that manner from the start, there would not be an <br />issue. He stated that originally, these lots were proposed at 65 feet and under that scenario the lots <br />would have met the minimum lot size requirement and there was sufficient spacing for the density <br />transitioning corridor to be held in separate parcel. He stated that the minimum lot size is larger <br />for 80-foot-wide lots and therefore with the separate density transitioning corridor, 80 foot lots in <br />that area could not meet the minimum lot size requirement. <br />Commissioner Anderson stated that this would mean yards would be smaller in that area and <br />therefore a variance request would need to come back in the future to consider those smaller lots. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.