My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 02/10/2004
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2004
>
Agenda - Council - 02/10/2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/24/2025 2:21:26 PM
Creation date
2/6/2004 3:13:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
02/10/2004
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.
/
245
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
Associate Planner Geisler indicated they were a combination of other city codes. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked how they compare with the surrounding cities. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler stated around Ramsey they do not have a brick requirement. She noted <br />Eden Prairie has had one for years, which is at least 50%, where Rivenwick is at 15 to 25% if you <br />look at the building as a whole. She mentioned the City Council specifically mentioned a brick <br />requirement, so the question is what is the appropriate percentage. She added she appreciates the <br />idea of an incentive based approach, because this is a flat standard. <br /> <br />Commissioner.Johnson explained what he is suggesting is if a developer came in with something <br />that far exceeded the standards in one area, they may be granted a variance in another area. He <br />stated without that he is concerned they will get the absolute minimum standards. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated on section 2, he likes the idea, but asked what is considered a major <br />thoroughfare. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon indicated a State Aid, County Road or <br />State Highway. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer suggested they add that language in the code. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt indicated on section 3, there could be a situation where you have a proposed <br />new development next to a 40 acre farm with an old homestead set way back on the property, and <br />you could not d° the new development because of the height difference. He would suggest they <br />add a distance requirement in addition to the word adjacent. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon noted this is applying to R-2 and R-3 and <br />does not affect the Town Center. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated as for the brick, 50% is too high. He would like Staff to look at 35% and <br />see if that is reasonable or if it still needs to be lower. <br /> <br />Commissioner lohnson indicated an answer to the question of where else this requirement is in <br />place would be helpful. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler indicated a lot of cities are doing this type of development as PUD's. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer stated he finds it interesting this standard is in place more in southern <br />towns than Anoka County. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/December 4, 2003 <br /> Page 18of 20 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.