Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Nixt asked if there were any comments on the Staff Review Letter. <br />Mr. Vanasee stated there was no objection to landscaping, but he is trying to get clarification on <br />the 35-feet to any intersection requirement. He asked if that was Radium Street. <br />Associate Planner Wald indicated she believes the answer is yes, but would have to defer to the <br />staff person who reviews the landscape plans. <br />Mr. Vanasee stated on the lighting plan, they submitted a plan but did not include the photo <br />metrics, and asked if Staff needed them. <br />Associate Planner Wald stated they just need to verify the lighting stays on the property. <br />Mr. Vanasee indicated there is a screening wall, and asked if it was acceptable to place trash by <br />the screening wall and fence it in. <br />Associate Planner Wald stated that would be acceptable. <br />Commission Input <br />Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Watson to recommend that the <br />City Council approve the proposed site plan contingent upon compliance with City Staff Review <br />Letter dated May 28, 2004. <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Johnson, Brauer, Watson, <br />Jeffrey, Shepherd, and Van Scoy. Voting No: None. <br />Case #7 Discuss Additional Development Standards for the R-1 Rural Developing <br />District; Case of City of Ramsey <br />Presentation <br />Associate Planner Geisler advised that at their May 11, 2004 meeting the City Council adopted a <br />90-day moratorium on all subdivision and platting in the R-1 Rural Developing District. She <br />indicated the moratorium is effective June 14, 2004 through September 12, 2004. The purpose of <br />the moratorium is to provide time for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider <br />additional development standards for the Rural Developing District. <br />Associate Planner Geisler indicated a major impetus for the development moratorium is concern <br />that the current 2.5-acre minimum lot size in the Rural Developing district does not adequately <br />plan for future urban development. She stated the City has processed several 2.5 acre <br />subdivisions in the past couple of years, and there is concern that additional 2.5 acre <br />developments may complicate planning for the possible extension of urban services beyond their <br />current location. She indicated the City Council has directed the Planning Commission and Staff <br />Planning Commission/June 3, 2004 <br />Page 12 of 18 <br />