Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5) Density exceeding single-family zoning. In order for this development to move forward, <br />a rezoning to planned-unit-development/medium density residential or a reduction in one <br />lot is required. <br /> <br />Associate Planner DaInes advised staff suggests that the applicant revise the sketch plan to <br />indicate a public road with single-family lots around the cul-de-sac. Staff also recommends <br />reducing the total lots to five to conform to the single-family zoning district density standards <br />and to increase the probability of conformance with setbacks. The amount of deviation from the <br />R-l performance standards will depend on the total lot sizes, any setback deviations, and the <br />number of units proposed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey indicated the double-frontage do not concern him, as the same situation <br />occurs up and down Highway 5. He expressed concern in trying to fit too many houses on this <br />piece of property. He inquired how many houses could potentially fit on this site under single- <br />family requirements with a public right-of-way and cul-de-sac. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Daines replied five lots would conform to the single-family zoning district <br />density standards. This is proposed as single level living, which she has been told is harder to do <br />without increasing the density. <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey expressed his approval of the plan not including a lot of townhomes. He <br />questioned why public right-of-way would not be included and expressed concern that a public <br />street is not included in the plan. He stated this will always be a challenged property due to the <br />inability to connect to it. He stated a cul-de-sac is needed and five lots should be looked at ifthat <br />is what meets the single-family density requirements. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen concurred. She stated she is not in favor of increasing the density <br />beyond what would be allowed under the single-family zoning and conforming to the cul-de-sac <br />and right-of-way requirements. She expressed concern with the location on Highway 5 and the <br />turn lanes that would be needed. She stressed the need for a comprehensive study of Highway 5 <br />to determine where turn lanes are warranted. <br /> <br />Council discussed the need for a comprehensive study of Highway 5 in relation to turn lanes, <br />acceleration lanes, access requirements, and the speed limit. Councilmembers expressed concern <br />regarding the impacts on Highway 5 with development proposals coming forward that access <br />Highway 5. <br /> <br />Mr. Tom Rollings, CBR Development, stated they have taken the advice of the Planning <br />Commission and reduced the 10 townhomes originally planned. The plan now includes one- <br />level single-family homes. He indicated the setbacks are accommodated better with this plan. <br />They are trying to get a decent size unit and maximize the number of units. The hammerhead <br />was used on a challenged site in Plymouth and seemed to work in this plan; he feels the more tar <br />the uglier the site. He did not know the hammerhead was not acceptable in Ramsey. He <br />suggested the possibility of a deceleration lane on Highway 5 if it would relieve any of the <br />problems. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session I March 20, 2007 <br />Page 10 or 13 <br />