My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 03-13-1995
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCP 03-13-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:10:16 PM
Creation date
11/6/2006 4:15:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
89
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
<br /> I <br /> I, t CITY OF ARDEN HILLS <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> I <br /> I DATE: March 23, 1995 <br /> TO: Mayor and City Council members <br /> I FROM: Brian Fritsinger, City Administrato@ <br /> I SUBJECT: Planning Cases #95-5 and #95-12 <br /> I The City Council received the draft minutes from the March I, 1995, Planning Commission <br /> Meeting as part of its March 16, 1995, City Council Worksession packet. Rather than review the <br /> I discussion of this meeting I have provided a brief summary of the history and facts of this <br /> property and case. <br /> I 1. Case #95-5. Ogren Townhomes PUD <br /> A. Zoning <br /> Ie I. The property is zoned R-I single family_ <br /> 2. The property has been zoned R-1 since the original ordinance was adopted in <br /> the 1950's. <br /> B. Ownership <br /> I 1. The property is not owned by the City or County and is not part of any City <br /> Park or Ramsey County Open Space. <br /> 2. The County has an existing 66 foot wide trail easement on the North side of the <br /> I property . <br /> 3. The property is owned by Bethel College. <br /> I 4. Bethel College has entered into a purchase agreement for the sale of this land to <br /> Dan Ogren. <br /> C. PUD Process <br /> I 1_ The proposed 18 (eighteen) unit townhouse project does not require a rezoning <br /> as proposed (density 2.77 /acre)_ <br /> 2_ The proposal does require a planned unit development (PUD)_ <br /> I 3_ The use of a PUD gives the City greater control of the development than a <br /> single family plat process. <br /> 4. The Planning Commission first reviewed this proposal as a concept PUD at its <br /> I February meeting_ <br /> s_ The Planning Commission approved the PUD with a number of conditions at <br /> its March meeting. <br /> I <br /> I e <br /> I <br /> - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.