My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-22-99 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
09-22-99 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 5:11:30 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:58:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />SEPTEMBER 22, 1999 <br />Scalze felt that other developers could make the same argument, and that <br />this argument did not constitute a hardship. <br />Howe pointed out that there is a 30-foot elevation change on this property <br />from Little Canada Road to the back property line. This makes the <br />property very diff'icult to work with. Buildings will need to be sta~gered <br />and retaining walls installed. This is the reason the PUD zonin~ is being <br />requested. <br />Morelan asked if variances would be required under PUD zoning. The <br />City Planner indicated that Mr. Howe is requesting PUD zoning rather <br />than the R-2 zoning using the PUD process by Conditional Use Permit that <br />he has recommended. The Planner indicated that with PUD zoning <br />setbacks can be negotiated without the need for variances. Under R-2 <br />zoning utilizing the PUD process, perimeter setbacks would have to be <br />met. <br />Scalze pointed out that Mr. Howe is dedicating more public use space than <br />is required under the ordinance. <br />It was noted that one unit has been eliminated from the concept proposal <br />due to setback issues. <br />Fahey suggested that the design of the buildin~s could be changed so that <br />setbacks can be met. <br />Howe reported that he would like to construct the same unit on this <br />property that he has constructed in the City of Roseville. Howe reported <br />that he wants a unit style that will sell, looks good, and will make the City <br />proud. <br />Morelan noted that the porches could be left off the units in order to meet <br />setbacks. Howe replied that he would like to offer porches and noted that <br />this would increase the value of the units resultin~ in an increase in tax <br />base. He further pointed out that the units would abut a garage area, <br />therefore, have no impact on the adjacent property. <br />LaValle asked if the PUD zoning would eliminate a precedent being set <br />relative to the setbacks bein~ requested. The City Planner stated that this <br />is correct. <br />Howe again indicated that this is a tough site to work with and pointed out <br />that he has tried to modify his proposal in response to the issues discussed <br />by the Planning Commission. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.