Laserfiche WebLink
CASE ~3: <br /> <br />CASE t4: <br /> <br />DISC'JSSION OF RURAL RF.~TDENTIAL DENSITY STANI]APJIg: <br /> <br />As you know, the issue of rural residential density standards <br />established in the City's Comprehensive Plan has come up as a result <br />of several planned unit developments which have proposed densities <br />exceeding the required one resident/al unit for each ten acres. The <br />Planning and Zoning Commission suggested a discussion of this matter <br />with the City Council and Metropolitan Council staff member Jim <br />Barton. The questions offered by the Planning and Zoning Commission <br />are as follows: <br /> <br /> 1) How did the one residential unit for each ten acre density <br />originate and what is the reasoning behind it? <br /> <br /> 2) What is this density (one residential unit for each ten <br />acres) intended to accomplish or protect? <br /> <br /> 3) If Ramsey restricts development in its Rural Area to one <br />unit for each ten acres, does the Metropolitan Council have any <br />programs to help stimulate growth in Ramsey's Urban Area? <br /> <br /> 4) Would it be possible to redraw the Rural Area boundaries so <br />that development north of Trott Brook be restricted to a one in ten <br />density while develoBment in the rest of the Rural Area be allowed at <br />a density of one residential unit for each five acres? <br /> <br />In addition, the Commission directed several questions to the City <br />Engineer and they are as follows: <br /> <br /> 1) How many more residential units could be developed in the <br />Rural Area with a density of one residential unit for each five <br />acres? <br /> <br /> 2) What is the total City acrage consumed in City, State, and <br />County parks and wetlands? <br /> <br />Enclosure (D2-b) contains a staff memo dated February 5, 1985 <br />regarding this matter. Also included is a memo from Mr. Jim Barton <br />dated November 27, 1984 in which he discusses rural residential <br />densities while reviewing the Rum River Hills Planned Unit <br />Develoiw~enu. <br /> <br />Your action will be based on your discussion. <br /> <br />PR~.IMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF KOVAR ADDITION~ CASE OF MR. MIC~AEr. <br /> <br />Mr. Kovar is request/ng preliminary plat approval of Kovar Addition <br />on the north side of Highway ~10 NW. The proposed plat consists of <br />approximately six acres to be divided into six approximately one acre <br />lots. A roadway is dedicated along the north edge of the plat for <br />future access to these lots. In addition, Mr. Kovar is petitioning <br />the City for construction of the rear access road. At their March 5, <br />1985 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended <br />preliminary approval of the plat. <br /> <br /> <br />