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
of the Charter Amendment. iii??:/":'.: <br />Vice-Chairperson Kociscak inquired if there is a 10 acre parcel in the rural areai"~d 10 acres <br />within the MUSA, according to this ordinance would the 10 acres within the..M:USA't2e able to <br />have a higher density than the 10 acres in the rural area. , .?%;" <br /> <br />Hoisin~on Koegler Consultant Gordon replied yes, explaining tha~.'if ther~:i[s'-.a developmen, t!,i"?~ <br />adjacent to rural lots ultimately the density would be less than if th'e~(j~ere adj~c~'t to the parcef'"'¢}iii:ii?· <br /> <br />V~ce-Chalrperson Komscak rephed that he was not sure ~5~..understan.ds. ~he fairness. <br /> <br />H oisington Koegler Consultant Gordon stated that i£'~¢' ~-e to comp'~:'}~ds adjacent to the <br />urban area to those lands in a rural area the lands in t~e urba~ area ~i:7i~e aiI°~ed more density <br />because the rural lots would require more transition, which is a requirement of the City Charter. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Wivoda, seconded by Commissioner D~//~i~ey, to':!~13'se the public <br />hearing. .:. ,7 :: ......, ~:~..· .. ,~';~*-';<'"~' <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes:_;:)ViCe-Ch.airperson'K0ciscak,_Commissioners Wivoda, Dempsey, <br />Gfiffiths, and Reeve. Voting Nb! None.~-~'. :.:¥f7~-'.:~- .._-; ._.- <br /> <br />The public hearing closed at 8:10 p.m. :i.i ?:~.. <br />Commission Bus,neSs ..... <br /> <br />Vice-Chairp~r~'on Kociscak Cai'ted the regular m~efirrg of the Planning Commission back to order <br /> <br />Commissioner W~oda inqdired: f~'the ,terms. "over story" and "under story" are defined in the <br />ordinance. ~:,~. (:,;i.f ... <br /> <br />Hoisington Koegler C~ukant Gordon replied no, noting that he included language that would <br /> <br /> require using' species that are Characteristic to the area and the site. <br /> <br /> Commissioner:'Wdvoda. stated that there needs to be some clarification as to how big an over <br /> story and under.story a tree is. <br /> <br />::~Hoisington K°egler Consultant Gordon replied that they could include those definitions, but <br /> noted that staff would be reviewing a landscaping plan as part of the process. <br /> Commissioner Dempsey suggested defining them by species. He also suggested that the berm <br /> heig~'at should be in a range of four to five feet and noted that the general consensus of the <br /> Chapter 9 Committee was that fences should be avoided if possible. He also stated that he was <br /> <br />-20- <br /> <br />Planning Commission/October 3, 2000 <br /> Page 10 of 16 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.