My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Environmental Policy Board - 06/05/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Environmental Policy Board
>
2005
>
Minutes - Environmental Policy Board - 06/05/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2025 2:31:52 PM
Creation date
4/19/2024 2:32:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Environmental Policy Board
Document Date
06/05/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
Mr. Anderson stated that he checked with a couple of cities, including Plymouth, to get ideas on <br />ways Ramsey could address this issue. He explained that in the City of Plymouth, a deck could <br />encroach up to six (6) feet into the structure setback area. <br />Board Member Olds stated that a developer for a new development would know the <br />requirements up front and would hopefully design the layout of the lots and plat to accommodate <br />everything within the recommended guidelines He noted that this would be better for the land <br />itself because there would be less demand. <br />Acting Chairperson McDilda agreed that the concerns expressed for the additional setback <br />guidelines are a legitimate concern. He stated that there could be strong pushback from planning <br />and zoning if another setback requirement is implemented on top of what is being required of the <br />development and the wetland buffer. He noted in the past these were not issues, he also stated <br />15-feet would be a good compromise to move forward. <br />Board Member Bentz asked if the 15-foot buffer is specific or could it be applied for any <br />building. <br />Mr. Anderson explained that there would be a 15-foot setback required for any structure such as <br />a house or garage. <br />Acting Chairperson McDilda noted that this is a good start to establishing the ordinance. He <br />explained that the ordinance documents are living documents and would require re -writes and <br />updates as the City grows and changes. <br />Mr. Bacon stated that there is a parallel concern with respect to good communication and the <br />notification process with homeowners when an adjoining property is subject to a land use <br />proposal. He stated that this would provide a measure identifying the importance of <br />acknowledging and notifying the homeowners that would be impacted by the changes. He <br />suggested that the Board consider how they could supplement the public notification process. <br />Mr. Anderson asked if there should be any allowances for permitted encroachments, such as <br />decks, or should all structures, excluding fences, have to meet the 15-foot setback. <br />Acting Chairperson McDilda stated that he would prefer to leave it and hold at the 15-feet and <br />they can apply for a variance if needed. <br />Board member Olds asked how many variance requests the city has received for properties in the <br />wetland areas. Mr. Anderson stated that the city receives anywhere from 6-12 variance requests <br />a year. <br />Mr. Anderson reviewed Section 9.26.07 as it addresses monuments and signage. <br />Board member Freeburg asked if there would be a penalty for removing monuments. Mr. <br />Anderson stated that the type of monument going in is supposed to be designed with a ground <br />anchor. He noted that the penalty for removing a monument or sign would be to pay for the <br />replacement of the sign. <br />Environmental Policy Board / June 20, 2005 <br />Page 5 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.