My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 10/24/2000
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2000
>
Agenda - Council - 10/24/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 1:48:10 PM
Creation date
7/28/2003 2:38:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
10/24/2000
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
283
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
uncomfortable with the way Subdivision 2.C.f. was written. He felt that there should <br />criteria that is applicable and not interpreted on a case by cases basis. Mr. <br />suggested that Mr. Gordon clarify the .tiering recommendation made by Cz <br />Henddksen. <br /> <br />· Hoisin~on Koegler Consultant Gordon reviewed some examples as to <br /> impact certain parcels in the City. <br /> <br />Commissioner Dempsey stated that Subdivision 1 should <br />development adjacent to existing urban development. <br /> <br />community Development Director Frolik noted a letter <br />requesting that property that is currently zoned for <br />density transition requirements. <br /> <br />received fi-om Mr. Ben Deemer <br />deVel~-~bnt be exempted from <br /> <br />Vice-Chairperson Kociscak stated that he would be <br />to the Council without Chairperson Nixt being ~ven an o <br />draft. <br /> <br /> ~g the ordinance on <br />revieTM .the most recent <br /> <br />Consensus of the Commission <br /> <br />Case #6: Proposed Am <br /> <br /> Vice-Chairperson Kociscak closed the of Commission meeting at <br /> 8:44 p.m. in order to~ conduct the public <br /> <br /> Vice-Ch'fi~erson Kociscakb~led ~e public h~hg back to order at 8:44 p.m. <br /> <br /> Presentation <br /> <br /> ,~?~*,:~Tj~'~esa. Greenfield:'::~cComba; Fr~ Roos, ~d Associates, stated ~at at ~e re~lar <br />~;~ :~?:/""~;~4:S~'on meeting ih.S~ptem~:~, some defidtive dkecfion was gven for mend~g ~e Tow~ <br /> Ordinan~b2'h: su~, ~h~:~°'~;sed amendments consist of the follow,g: ' · <br /> <br /> · Res~ctingfT~ll towe~~ to residential p~cels at le~t 10 a~es in size-located b ~ area <br /> depicted i~the dra~ comprehensive plan as ~e Rural Pres~e ~ea (to be identified as a <br /> Tower Ov~la~ District in ~e tower ordin~ce). <br /> · Resthcting' all other towers- in the residential zone genially to church, park, gove~ent, <br /> ';7:::~' :. school~ufil1w, and institutional sites at least 10 acres in size. <br /> · * .': EstabHSNng a tower setback from residential dwellings equal to 1.5 times the height of ~e <br /> tow,c~. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Planning Commission/October 3, 2000 <br /> Page 11 of 16 <br /> <br />-191- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.