My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 12/04/2003
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
2003
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 12/04/2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 4:01:51 PM
Creation date
2/17/2004 10:44:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
12/04/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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 comment:;is Chairperson Nixt's point about 25% coverage, when across the streetit is 35%. <br />He feels that lithits the value of his property. <br /> <br />Chairperson Ni~t 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 Normar[~i indicated he had a business in Ramsey for twelve years, and was responsible for <br />bringing in Plogsureland 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 Ch~rperson Nixt, seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing at <br />9:15 p.m. <br /> <br />Motion carriedi Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Johnson, Van Scoy, Brauer, <br />Jeffrey, Shepherd and Watson. Voting No: None. Absent: None. <br /> <br />Commissioner Yan 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 print, where they are saying there is a limit to the square <br /> ,[ <br />footage. She i[i~icated the rationale is to limit value. <br /> <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked why they would want to limit the value. <br /> <br />Chairperson Ni[t commented the property will ultimately have to be purchased at value, and this <br />is a government 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.~,i Voting Yes: Commissioners Brauer, Johnson, Shepherd, and Van Scoy. Voting <br />No: Chairpers,on Nixt and Commissioners Jeffrey and Watson. Absent: None. <br /> <br />Case #5 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 development at its July 29, 2003 work session. She stated at that meeting Staff <br />reformed the Council that the Housing Committee would be taking up architectural standards <br />with the hope '~of making a recommendation to Council in the near future. The Housing <br />Committee has i~been reviewing and modifying draft standards for several months, and has voted <br />to forward the draft to the EDA and Planning Commission for their consideration. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/December 4, 2003 <br /> Page 16of 20 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.