My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2005
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:37:36 AM
Creation date
5/27/2005 11:26:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
06/02/2005
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.
/
231
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
(~ommb;sioner Brauer stated that was the direction he was heading, but with the guidelines they <br />have he linds himself running into the problem of whether they should apply R-1 requirements, <br />which il will eventually be, or the requirements for the zoning it is now. <br /> <br />('ommunity Development Director Trudgeon indicated that in the guidelines the City has the <br />option of looking at other alternatives, so if you consider the wetlands, tree preservation, etc., you <br />~:an look att developments on a case by case basis. <br /> <br />(;ommissioner Brauer stated he believes this is close.enough to meeting the rural development <br />guidelines that he would consider those standards versus R-1 standards. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated he is not willing to go that far, but noted this is similar to Shade Tree <br />(iottagcs where it was abutting rural and urban lots. He indicated he d0es not want to modify the <br />ordinance For each development, but thinks on this development they can make it work with the <br />~; uFrt.~n t ordinance. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated that Commissioner Brauer's point is well taken; they have to <br />determine which codes they are going to apply, and can address that with an amendment to the <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated in order for this development to go forward they have to rezone to R-I, <br />and this development will work. <br /> <br />i)iscussit~n continued on the buffering issues, and what changes, if any, would need to be made <br /> thc guidelines or ordinances. <br /> <br />(,~ommissioner Johnson asked if Staff is comfortable applying the transition ordinance they have <br />now £o olher developments. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon indicated they would be, because of the 'other <br />alternt~ti, ves' clause. <br /> <br />Ctmm~issioner Brauer stated they could have had someone come in with a development showing <br />minimum lot size who wanted to knock down all the trees and it would be a whole different <br /> <br />(.?tmm]issioner Johnson stated they need to be clear. He indicated when these developments <br />come in tbr thc rural developing area that are platting .for urban development that urban <br />development requirements apply. <br /> <br />Ct;mm unity Development Director Trudgeon stated that unless, they change the ordinance, more <br />limes ti'mn not they will end up under other alternatives. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/April 21, 2005 <br /> Page 13 of 23 <br /> <br />P13 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.