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
Mr. P'cges replied the reason for the rezoning would be to have a balance and a choice in- <br />housing. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer stated if the Commission were to approve the rezoning requested by <br />Shorewalk, LLC they _would need to approve a rezoning to anyone else that would like to rezone <br />to PUD' due to the precedent that would be set. He questioned Mr. Feges at what point the <br />Commission would be able to say no to the rezoning. <br /> <br />Mr. Feges replied he is looking at the opportunity to introduce a plan as an alternative using a <br />PUD. The challenge for the Commission is to allow a variety in the community. The <br />Commission could say no to the rezoning requests when there is a comfort level that there is <br />enough variety. Shorewalk, LLC looked at the market feasibility with this sketch plan. This site <br />is close to the transportation and retail, and it will provide the choices that have not existed in <br />this community. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked if the size of the wetland on th/s size is known. <br /> <br />b/h-. Feges replied the wetland delineation was just completed' and the size is approximately 20 <br />~tCI'CS. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy commented he would consider a 12-plex to be more consistent with an <br />apartment than a townhome. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy stated he does not see a lot of redeeming value tO this sketch plan, and <br />it does not fit the neighborhood. This is a wonderful piece of land, and to chop it up in the way <br />r)resented does not seem appropr/ate to him. He would not support this sketch plan. <br /> <br />Commissioner Levine commented the sketch plan does not show any type of area for outdoor <br />activity. <br /> <br />Mr. Fcges replied the site will include pathways and walkways along the water feature that <br />would tie into a network of trail systems. He stated he would be happy to bring back other <br />~;ketches to present to the Commission. What does not resonate well in the sketches presented is <br />i:hat the buildings will be complimentary to the terrain. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van' Scoy stated he does not have a tremendous objection to townhomes,.but the <br />density proposed, in this sketch plan seems to be extreme. In addition, the large complexes are <br />located directly behind the existing single family homes in three locations. He thinks R-1-is <br />appropriate for this area, and does not support maximizing the number of units that can be <br />developed on this land. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated what is being seen with the PUD zoning is that rather than being used to <br />deal with a difficult and challenging topographic site or to preserve and enhance a natural <br />aesthetic feature, it is more commonly used for a density bonus. He sees this sketch plan as <br /> <br />Planning Commission/November 3, 2005 <br /> Page 9 of 27 <br /> <br />P39 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.