My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2005
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:38:15 AM
Creation date
11/23/2005 3:16:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
12/01/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
168
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
to Sunfish Lake Blvd. The northwest and so.uthwest corners of the site may be subject to density <br />transition requirements. She explained the property is in the Sunfish Lake Shoretand Overlay <br />District and compliance with the regulations of that district:must be demonstrated at the time of <br />preliminary plat. A portion of the property abuts a wetland and will be expected to comply with <br />the wetland buffer requirements. <br /> <br />Assistant commurfity Development Director Frolik distributed letters received by staff; one letter <br />from the Concerned Citizens of Ramsey and a petition stating opposition to the proposal. <br /> <br />John Feges, applicant, stated with this project Shorewalk, LLC is trying to be a good steward of <br />the land. He provided an overview of the proposed development, including a description of the <br />single family homes, 8-plexes and 12-ptexes included in the sketch plan. He stated the vertical <br />building of the 8-plexes and 12-plexes allows more green space between the buildings and on the <br />site. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt expressed concern with the density included in the sketch plan. He stated there <br />has been density considered in this area for a while,.and it has been contested strongly by the <br />residents and opposed generally at the Planning Commission level. He. questioned why this <br />proposal is different than the previous proposals for this area. <br /> <br />Mr. Feges replied he is not sure about proposals in the past. He explained Shorewalk, LLC could <br />push the limits of density up to four units per acre under the PUD zoning, but they are not <br />planning to push that. The schematic design illustrated 343 units, but they have already looked <br />at modifying the plan to approximately 294 or 295 units based on the wetland delineation. He <br />stated the proposed choices in housing are more complimentary to the changes in society's <br />needs. What Shorewalk, LLC wants to do is introduce products that are more complimentary to <br />the shift in lifestyle changes. They also want to take advantage of some of this vista that has not <br />really been captured a lot in Anoka County. This sketch plan allows them to open up greenspace <br />between the residences. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer explained over the last few .meetings the Planning Commission has <br />reviewed a fair number of PUD's, but in each case the main reason for looking at the <br />development as a PUD involved some type of problem with the site and/or negotiation with the <br />City.. He questioned what the compelling reason would be to rezone this site from R-1 to PUD, <br />as the only reasons presented by Mr. Feges relate to aesthetics. <br /> <br />Commissioner shepherd arrived at 7:39 p.m. <br /> <br />Mr. Feges stated Shorewalk, LLC looked at allowing a var/ety of housing to provide choices in <br />the community. It is not that' Shorewalk is trying to drive density for profitability; it is a choice <br />that is being desired by a change and shifting of community, and the population, with a variety of <br />lifestyle changes.. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer questioned if Mr. Feges is stating that there are no compelling geographic <br />or other reasons to rezone this site to PUD. <br /> <br />P38 <br /> <br />Planning Commission/November 3, 2005 <br /> Page 8 of 27 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.