My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 03/08/2022
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2022
>
Agenda - Council - 03/08/2022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2025 2:19:07 PM
Creation date
3/16/2022 10:27:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
03/08/2022
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.
/
547
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
Chairperson Bauer commented that he believes that a buffer should be created to prevent the City <br /> from dipping below the three units per acre threshold. He asked if an applicant could meet two <br /> criteria to apply. <br /> } <br /> Senior Planner McGuire Brigl confirmed that an applicant could apply for a Comprehensive Plan <br /> amendment if two of the criteria are met. <br /> Commissioner Dunaway stated that he has a similar concern with the proposed language, noting <br /> that E and F are very similar in meeting a threshold. He asked why similar criteria were added. <br /> He stated that if only two criteria are required, if an applicant met E,it could most likely also meet <br /> F. <br /> Senior Planner McGuire Brigl provided clarification noting that the intent was related to existing <br /> rural residential development. She suggested merging E and F into one criteria. <br /> Commissioners vanScoy and Dunaway confirmed that they would prefer to merge those items. <br /> Commissioner walker commented that the City Council.has stated that it does not want smaller <br /> lots in this area. He stated that only two options are provided, and he does not like either option. <br /> He stated that he was told that once there is an open development case, the Comprehensive Plan <br /> and/or zoning could not be changed, yet here is a request to change both. He asked if this would <br /> be a great time to try to come up with a compromise to have larger lots on the outside and smaller <br /> lots on the inside to create the desired density. <br /> Commissioner vanScoy commented that was the initial proposal. <br /> Commissioner walker disagreed and believed that the original proposals included 55-, 65-, and <br /> 75-foot lots. He commented that there has never been a compromise for the existing residents and <br /> asked if this would be the perfect time to provide larger lots on the outside of the development. f <br /> He stated that if the density could be increased, the Comprehensive Plan would not need to be <br /> changed and everyone would get what they want. He stated that he would not even say full acre <br /> lots on the border, although ideally that would be preferred, but stated perhaps 120 foot lots are <br /> placed on the border to protect the existing residents. He noted then perhaps 70 or 65 foot lots are <br /> placed in the middle of the development. <br /> Senior Planner McGuire Bri I commented that the did review that option with the applicant and <br /> S e g y p pp <br /> even with larger lots they cannot get over the density threshold. She stated that the Preliminary a <br /> Plat has already been approved and therefore the discussion tonight is related to density and <br /> whether the Commission would support the Comprehensive Plan amendment. She noted that the <br /> alternative would be to amend the zoning to allow smaller lots to meet the three units per acre <br /> threshold of the Metropolitan Council and the City Council has already stated it will not support <br /> that option. She stated that if nothing is done, that would be considered a taking and therefore <br /> these are the only two options to consider at this time. She stated that staff supports the lower <br /> density as that is desired by the existing residents and City Council. <br /> Planning Commission/January 27,2022 <br /> Page 9 of 22 <br /> 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.