My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 11/06/2000
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
2000
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 11/06/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/20/2025 2:14:05 PM
Creation date
5/22/2003 9:38:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
11/06/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
Chairperson Nixt replied that if there is not a traffic oUtlet for the new development to an arterial <br />street to keep the majority of the traffic out of the exiting neighborhood, then there would be a <br />substantial increase in traffic flow through the existing neighborhood. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson inquired if staff had definitions of what would be considered the types of <br />streets the Charter amendment is referring to. <br />Community Development Director Frolik replied that City Code and the Comprehensive Plan <br />include street classifications. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson suggested including that concept into this ordinance. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson recommended changing the wording in Subdivision 4 sixth line down <br />from reading "...existing property" to "...existing platted development", and add to the second b. <br />in Subdivision 1 the following language: "Provided however that any residential use must <br />comply with the most restrictive setback and screening requirements between the current zoning <br />and the proposed zoning" <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt inquired as to how that requirement would be tracked. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik replied that it could be done with contract rezoning. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kociscak stated that he would prefer to have the second b., from Subdivision 1, <br />deleted from the ordinance. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Reeve, to recommend that City <br />Council adopt the proposed density transition ordinance with the amendments as recommended <br />by Commissioner Johnson. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Chairperson Nixt stated that he did not agree with the amendment that was <br />made to the second b of Subdivision 1 to exempt commercial property that is rezoned to <br />residential, but would vote in favor of the motion in order to move the process along. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Johnson, and Reeve. Voting <br />No: Commissioner Kociscak. Absent: Commissioners Griffiths and Wivoda. <br /> <br />Case #6: <br /> <br />Request to Rezone Property from R-1 Urban Residential to R-3 Urban <br />Residential; Case of Anoka Community Action Program (ACCAP) <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt closed the regular portion of the Planning Commission meeting at 8:14 p.m. in <br />order to conduct the public hearing. <br /> <br />Public Hearing <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt called the public hearing to order at 8:14 p.m. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/November 6, 2000 <br /> Page 13 of 21 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.