My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 03-16-1995
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CCP 03-16-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:10:17 PM
Creation date
11/6/2006 4:16:03 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 /> . <br /> , <br /> I. t <br /> CITY OF ARDEN HILLS <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> I <br /> I DATE: March 23, 1995 <br /> TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers <br /> I FROM: Brian Fritsinger, City AdministratOl~ <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 /> . 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 /> .- I. The property is zoned R-I single family. <br /> 2. The property has been zoned R-I since the original ordinance was adopted in <br /> the 1950's. <br /> I B. Ownership <br /> 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 /> property. <br /> 3. The property is owned by Bethel College. <br /> . 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 ofthe development than a <br /> single family plat process. <br /> . 4. The Planning Commission first reviewed this proposal as a concept PUD at its <br /> February meeting. <br /> 5. The Planning Commission approved the PUD with a number of conditions at <br /> I its March meeting. <br /> I- <br /> I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.