Laserfiche WebLink
Case ~i 153rd Avenue N.W. Crosstown Arterial <br />City En~i.'~ ankowski briefly described the five alternatives for the 153rd Avenue N.W. <br />Morion b~ Cl}mmzss~oner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner Terry to stay with <br />Alternat~ #~which is to connect 153rd Avenue N.W. as per Thoroughfare Plan. <br />Motion e~rri{~:t. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners Deemer, Terry, <br /> and Thorud. No: None. Commissioner <br />Holland,~aD~e Voting Absent: Hendriksen. <br /> <br />Case #3:I !Review of City Code Regulations for Accessory Structures <br /> <br />Zoning/g~m~istrator Frolik stated that at the October meeting, the Planning and Zoning <br />CommisSiOn 4iscussed the fact that the method used for determining minimum lot area <br />when pl~lt~ing~(with road right-of-way) conflicts with the method used in determining lot <br />area for ~e ~hforcement purposes (without road right-of-way). The threshold for having <br />a pole bO~di~g is 2.5 acres. The impact of this is that some of the lots in a "2.5 acre <br />subdivis~c~n" l~,ill qualify for pole buildings and some will not. Frolik stated that of the <br />surroundi, 4g c~ mmunities, Ramsey has one of the most lenient acreage thresholds for pole <br />buildingS,i Sh~ recommended that there be no reduction of the acreage threshold for pole <br />building§. ! <br /> <br />Followi ~r~gidis~ussion, the Commission determined that if the pole building were similar to <br />the houst~',i(e.~, eaves, soffets, fascia, etc.), they would be allowable. <br />Ms. Frolil~ sUggested that Commissioner Deemer could work with her and the Building <br />Official ~ thig issue. <br /> <br />Motion (~iCOmmissioner LaDue and seconded by Commissioner Holland to table this case <br />and recol~[id~t' after the redrafting by the Zoning Administrator, Building Official and <br />Commis~l~'~n~Deemer. <br />Motion ¢~e~l. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners LaDue, Holland, <br />Deemer, I',l~err~, and Thorud. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Hendriksen. <br />Case #4:i }Proposed Revisions to the B-1 and B-2 Business Districts <br /> r <br />Zoning/~ Im~istrator Frolik stated that as a follow up to the amendments to the B-3 <br />Highwa~ )islet regulations, she drafted changes to the B-1 Business District and B-2 <br />Businesa )is ,ffict. She stated that as with the B-3 Business District, the permitted uses <br />have bee~ amended to include those uses already determined acceptable with a conditional <br />use perm contingent upon meeting certain criteria. These criteria have been convened to <br />pefforma :e s~andards. <br /> <br />The Comn~issf~n proceeded to review the proposed revisions. <br /> <br />Motion <br /> EssenUai, <br />Motion ~a <br />LaDue, ~e <br /> <br />Motion b~ <br />Business~ <br />service Or <br />structur'~ <br /> <br />' COmmissioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner Holland to delete <br />ge~,ices" from the B-2 District Permitted Uses. <br /> <br />rrie4t. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners Deemer, Holland, <br />try alnd Thorud. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Hendriksen. <br /> <br /> C ~o[n, missioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner Terry to amend B-1 <br />~isl!{ict, Subd. 3. Accessory uses: e) to read: "Open and outdoor storage, sales, <br />rel~al, not to exceed 10% of the parcel area and not to exceed principal <br /> <br />Planning & Zoning Commission/12/1/92 <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />