My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
01/31/2002
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Chapter 9 Committee
>
Minutes
>
2002
>
01/31/2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2025 1:33:08 PM
Creation date
4/26/2024 10:43:46 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
Councilmember Hendriksen stated that he would like some verbiage that if it serves no useful <br />purpose to require certain things they would not be required to do so. <br />Mr. Gordon stated that he would get some feedback from the City Attorney as well as history <br />from staff and bring the issue back. <br />Councilmember Anderson stated that the second sentence in section 9.03.06 Site Plan Review <br />was not clear. <br />Mr. Gordon noted that it was a "catch all" for everything that is in the zoning code. <br />Commissioner Sweet noted that it was grammatically incorrect. <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that the site plan review process is required for all proposed <br />multiple dwelling, which is defined as one unit consisting of three or more units, would that mean <br />that a duplex would not require site plan review. <br />Principal Planner Trudgeon stated that was correct, explaining that three units are more similar to <br />a townhome development. <br />Councilmember Anderson stated that it needs to be clarified where townhomes and duplexes <br />belong. <br />Councilmember Hendriksen inquired if there was a development of multiple lots all with duplexes <br />would a site plan review be required. <br />Principal Planner Trudgeon replied no. <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that it has become common practice to construct detached <br />townhomes on lots that are the footprint of the house and then count the rest of the land as <br />common ownership, he inquired as to how that would apply to the site plan review requirement. <br />Principal Planner Trudgeon replied that site plan review would not be required. <br />Councilmember Anderson stated that they need to consider the new housing patterns. <br />Councilmember Zimmerman recommended reducing the multiple family dwelling definition down <br />to two units. <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that he would like to see site plan review for detached <br />townhomes as well. <br />Consensus of the Chapter 9 Committee was that site plan review should be required for anything <br />above the traditional single family lot. <br />Chapter 9 Committee/January 31, 2002 <br />Page 8 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.