My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2009
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2009
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:59:55 AM
Creation date
2/27/2009 11:57:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
03/05/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
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 />Attachment A <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill stated another purpose of the work plan is to give the Council an <br />opportunity to see what the Plannil;1g Commission is discussing. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked staff for input on what they feel is important and to provide a brief <br />explanation of why it is important. He stated it would be helpful to have a list of projects and <br />their associated significance in order to allow the Planning Commission to prioritize its work. <br />He stated one of the items previously discussed by the Planning Commission had to do with <br />closing off roads to address traffic flow. He stated he wou e to see some policy thinking <br />with respect to connector streets. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer stated it will b <br />the Planning Commission work plan is <br /> <br /> <br />12, the Council and <br />e Council will be <br />. . es and strategic <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill stated a joint work sessi, <br />that topic could be discussed with the Council. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Miller"'Jl!ljjl_ on February 11 <br />Department Heads will hold a strategic plaiilf!tg. meeting' in additio <br />scheduling joint meetings with all the boards an~e\i!'r~ to discuss p <br />planning. <br /> <br />keep the work plan informal at this time, <br /> <br />Case <br /> <br />Managemen 'IJ1l~J.11 Haugen s the ; egulations in the City Code are currently in conflict <br />. with respect to.'h~1gbt limitatio He stated Section 9.12.03, subd. 11 (Flags), restricts flag pole <br />height to 25 feet;'if";;;~"ver, Sec~!"", 9.11.11 (Permitted Encroachments) specifically excludes flag <br />poles from any heig ",~;;".~~~~f:~~' He noted one way to rectify the situation is to amend the <br />Code and another possi51e.W~YQh would be to restrict flag pole height to the maximum allowable <br />building height in a zoning~mstrict. He indicated staff believes consideration should be given to <br />a setback requirement for flag poles. <br /> <br />Commissioner Levine asked what other cities have done in this case. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Gladhill replied that the regulations are all over the board and it depends on <br />the needs ofthat community. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Miller stated it would make sense to say it would be the <br />maximum allowable height for any structure in a zoning district within that district. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/February 5, 2009 <br />Page 8 of 10 <br /> <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.