My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2004
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:33:03 AM
Creation date
2/3/2004 10:00:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
02/05/2004
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.
/
297
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
other commer)t is Chairperson Nixt's point about 25% coverage, when across the street it is 35%. <br />He feels that limits the value of his property. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated there are two value issues; property outside the H-1 area that can have <br />35% coverage~ and property within the area that is over 25% and could not reconstruct. <br /> <br />Dallas Norman indicated he had a business in Ramsey for twelve years, and was responsible for <br />bringing in P!easureland when he retired for health reasons. He wanted everyone to know his <br />property would be up for lease next year with Pleasureland leaving. <br /> <br />Motion by Cliairperson Nixt, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing at <br />9:15 p.m. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Johnson, Van Scoy, Brauer, <br />Jeffrey, Shepherd and Watson. Voting No: None. Absent: None. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked what the rationale is for 25% as opposed to 35%. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald stated they do not want massive buildings on a property. She added that <br />now the calculation is limited to the foot pent, where they are saying there is a limit to the square <br />footage. She indicated the rationale is to limit value. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked why they would want to limit the value. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt commented the property will ultimately have to be purchased at value, and this <br />is a governm~'nt bodies attempt to limit costs of a project. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson added that is not a good rationale, which is why he suggested Staff <br />consult with .the City attorney. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Commissioners Brauer, Johnson, Shepherd, and Van Scoy, Voting <br />No: ChairperSon Nixt and Commissioners Jeffrey and Watson. Absent: None. <br /> <br />Case #5 <br /> <br />'Review Architectural Standards for Medium and High Density Residential <br />Districts <br /> <br />Presentation: <br />Associate Planner Geisler advised the City Council discussed architectural standards for <br />multifamily ~evelopment at its July 29, 2003 work session. She stated at that meeting Staff <br />informed the [Council that the Housing Committee would be taking up architectural standards <br />with the hopk of making a recommendation to Council in the near future. The Housing <br />Committee h~Is been reviewing and modifying draft standards for several months, and has voted <br />to/~brward the draft to the EDA and Plarming Commission for their consideration. <br /> <br />Planning CommissiOn/December 4, 2003 <br /> Page 16of 20 <br /> <br />101 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.