My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 01/09/2007
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2007
>
Agenda - Council - 01/09/2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 9:57:14 AM
Creation date
1/5/2007 3:12:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
01/09/2007
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.
/
318
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
<br />. Acting Chairperson Van Scoy called the Board of Adjustment meeting back to order at 7:53 p.m. <br /> <br />Acting Chairperson Van Scoy commented there could be a significant amount of delivery traffic <br />on this site with vans and trucks. <br /> <br />Assistant' Community Development Director Frolik noted the need to consider emergency <br />vehicle access as well. <br /> <br />Acting Chairperson Van Scoy inquired if the use on the site would change if it were to be under <br />the control of one owner. . <br /> <br />Associate Planner Daines replied the City has limited control on condo plats. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Pirector Frolik advised the owner could condo out the <br />building, and would need to own the land. <br /> <br />Acting Chairperson Van Scoy commented the plan was approved in its configuration specifically <br />to avoid Lot 2 being landlocked. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Frolik' advised it is not good planning to put the <br />City seal on a plat 'that knowingly creates a landlocked parcel. <br /> <br />. Board Member Brauer asked if the applicant would need a variance to build onLot 2 if he were <br />to remain as the owner of the lot. . <br /> <br />Associate Planner DaInes replied there would only be one lot. A variance would be needed to <br />build multiple buildings on one lot; there is precedent for having done this in the past to make <br />better use of a lot. <br /> <br />Board Member Brauer commented to some extent the' Board has put the applicant in this <br />position, but he does not think they envisioned two separate lots. He inquired about the <br />consequences from a safety aspect and emergency vehicle access. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Daines replied at the development review meeting it was indicated there would <br />not necessarily be' a difference between a separate building and an expansion, with the access to <br />the back of the building being the same. In staff's opinion it is more appropriate to retain one lot <br />due to all the issues associated with the sit~, such as landscaping, access, parking, paving, etc. <br /> <br />Board Member Levine noted if this remains as one lot with a second building that is condoed out <br />to the carpet company there will still be issues related to traffic, fire access, etc. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Civil Engineer II Linton explained with one lot under the control of one owner the condo <br />agreement will address the access. An individual would not purchase a condoed unit without <br />being sure there .will be access to the unit. Approving this subdivision would put the City seal on <br />a substandard lot, and there would still be the issue of maintaining an access easement, where if <br />it is all one piece of land the access would be addressed in the purchase agreement for the <br /> <br />Board of AdjustmentlDecember 7, 2006 <br />Page 11 of 16 <br /> <br />-21- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.