My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/2017
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/2017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:28:51 AM
Creation date
12/28/2017 9:12:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
09/07/2017
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.
/
218
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
Commissioner Surma believed the City's pictures with porches were not clear. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill commented on the porch issue further with the <br />Commission. <br />Motion by Commissioner Nosan, seconded by Commissioner Surma, to recommend that City <br />Council approve the appeal request for a split entry model in The COR. <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bauer, Commissioners Nosan, Surma, and Anderson. <br />Voting No: Brauer, Gengler and VanScoy. Absent: None. <br />Commissioner VanScoy excused himself from the meeting at 9:55 p.m. <br />6.04: Discuss Concerns Raised on Accessory Building Architectural Standards <br />Presentation <br />Planning Intern Anderson presented the Staff Report stating at the June 13, 2017 City Council <br />Meeting, concerns about the architectural standards for accessory buildings were brought up by a <br />resident of Ramsey. The comments concerned a metal paneled pole barn that was recently <br />constructed on his neighbor's property and whether these metal panel structures should be <br />allowed on smaller lots. The City Council suggested the Planning Commission review the <br />standards associated with accessory building and metal panel structures in particular to determine <br />whether any additional design and architectural controls are warranted. Staff requested feedback <br />from the Commission on this matter. <br />Commission Business <br />Chairperson Bauer asked where an accessory building would be allowed. <br />City Planner Anderson reviewed the lot sizes and zoning districts where an accessory building <br />would be allowed. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill commented on the initial concerns that were raised <br />and stated the placement of a metal paneled structure was of concern along with the minimum <br />roof pitch. <br />Chairperson Bauer stated the roof pitch could make a building even more overbearing. <br />Commissioner Anderson believed that the structure in question had more square footage than the <br />home. It was his opinion the accessory structure looked out of place and should have been <br />pushed to the rear yard. He recommended that all accessory structures match the colors of the <br />principle structure. <br />Planning Commission/July 6, 2017 <br />Page 14 of 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.