My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2005
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:37:23 AM
Creation date
4/29/2005 12:45:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
05/05/2005
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.
/
228
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
of the boildings an the site and its vicinity. <br />For example, the planner could note that the <br />;iron tn the north consists of "one-story, sin- <br />~[e-family homes, to to 2o years old, and in <br />rnodera[e repair" and describe the area to <br />the south as "new, three-story professional <br />office buiidin§s in good condition." fhe archi- <br />tecturo[ character of buildin§s may be an <br />issue if ti~e staff report concerns an applica- <br />tion for historic preservation or desi§n <br />review, or [f there are nearby buiidin§s that <br />either have ~ocal historic si§nificance or are <br />on the National Re§islet of Historic Places. <br />Architectural character deals with issues of <br />st,tie for construction, roof form, fenestration, <br />buildin~ hei§ht, buildin§ ornamentation (e.~., <br />cornices), 4nd entryway placement. Buildings <br />may also have si§nificance because the,/fi§- <br />!Jred [n prominently in local history. In these <br />cases, the planner may need to consult his- <br />toric building inventories or request assis- <br />tance from the state historic preservation <br />office if architectural expertise is not avail- <br />able ~)n the planning staff or within the local <br />§ov~rnrnellt. <br /> The location of buildinss on the site can <br /> be an hnportant issue for variances. For exam- <br /> ple, the 3ppiicant may wish to add a room onto <br /> a buiidin§ that potentially projects into a <br /> required fronL side, or rear yard. In such cases, <br /> the precise distance be~veen the buildin§ and <br /> the ,_;etback line becomes critical (e.§., the dif- <br /> ference beb/veen a buildin§ that is exactly on a <br /> side ,/ard setback tine or one that projects o.5 <br /> feet int~] the setback area). Therefore, it is desir- <br /> able to .Jsk the applicant to have a surveyor pint <br /> distances from tot lines to setback lines, and <br /> from setback lines to proposed buiJdin§ loca- <br /> tions, to determine whether the variance is nec- <br /> essa¢/or, alternately, whether the buitdin§ <br /> design could be modified to eliminate the need <br /> for the variance. <br /> Views. When a site offers si§nificant <br /> v~ews (overh)okin§ a city or lake), it is possi- <br /> !)lo for d~e applicant to request a change [hat <br /> :ould pol-ential[y impair those views. If the <br /> total ff~ove, rnment has some discretion in the <br /> heir;or .md placement of buiidin§s on the site <br /> (as ir] a planned unit development), [t is <br /> .H]propriate [o document views in the site <br /> anaWsis. Officials may recommend ~hat the <br /> buildin~ desi§n or footprint be altered to pro- <br /> loc: lb(! ,;Jews. [t is worthwhile In nolo that <br /> mudern 3eo§raphic information systems (GI$) <br /> als,) .-dh]w the depiction o(viewsheds, usin§ <br /> guilt-m (iLS fonctlnns. <br /> <br />ZONING PRACTICE :z.os <br />,~MERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIAnON I pQge ~ <br /> <br />99 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.