My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 05/10/2016
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2016
>
Agenda - Council - 05/10/2016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 3:49:31 PM
Creation date
5/10/2016 11:30:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
05/10/2016
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.
/
548
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
www.citvoframsev.com/thecor/zeolite. Should the vision of this five (5) acre district be modified <br />to allow for retail? <br />If you answered yes to #9, what types of land uses/changes should be considered? <br />10. The city has allowed flexibility in the past with regard to the exact boundaries of these sub - <br />districts. Given that, which of the below statement do you most closely agree with? <br />The COR Plan's purpose is to provide a physical framework and vision for <br />development and the boundaries should be maintained. Projects that do not meet the <br />permitted uses of this district shall not be allowed. The district boundaries shall not be modified <br />to allow for <br />Boundaries should be flexible and responsive to the market, but the City should <br />develop a policy to determine whether an amendment is in the best interest of the community. <br />Developers should be able to adapt any of the boundaries to their needs. The City <br />should rely on the market to determine appropriate land uses and district boundaries shall be <br />modified to meet proposed projects. <br />Explain: <br />MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN STANDARDS <br />11. There is currently no Architectural Review Committee for the COR. Should it be re-established? <br />Yes No I don't know <br />Comments: <br />12. The City continues to get requests for signs up to seventy-five (75) feet and height and upwards <br />of 300 square feet in height, requiring special permission from the City Council. Should the <br />current sign regulations be reconsidered/revisited? Yes No I don't <br />know <br />13. If you answered yes to #12, in what ways should the sign regulations changes? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.