Laserfiche WebLink
Case 4/2: Request for Final Plat Approval of Alpine Addition; Case of <br /> Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc. and the City of Ramsey <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik stated there was an agreement between Waste Management of <br />Minnesota, Inc. and the City of Ramsey wherein it was stated that if the landfill was not <br />developed as a ski hill, then Waste Management would deed approximately 50 acres to the <br />City on the north side of the landfill. The ski hill development was not feasible and, <br />through negotiations with the City of Ramsey, Waste Management will be deeding <br />approximately 100 acres to the City. She reported that Waste Management and the City are <br />platting the property to facilitate the conveyance of property to the City. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich talked about the easements and showed where accesses would be. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Beahen to adopt <br />Resolution g95-03-056 granting final plat approval to Alpine Addition contingent upon <br />compliance with City Staff Review Letter dated March 22, 1995, and entering into a <br />development agreement with the City. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Peterson, Beahen, Beyer <br />and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case #3: Proposed Regulations for Accessory Apartments <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik explained that in the past one and one-half years or so, there <br />have been three to four requests of people wanting apartments in single family homes. <br />There was an ordinance drafted which the Planning Commission conducted a public <br />hearing for. A couple of comments were submitted in opposition plus some phone calls. <br />The Planning Commission has recommended that accessory apartments not be legalized but <br />that they be dear with on a case-by-case basis. The conditional use permit does not layout <br />the criteria to consider it on a case-by-case basis. She recommended that Council review <br />the ordinance. <br /> <br />Benjamin Moss, 8320 - 157th Lane N.W., Ramsey, stated he agrees with Ms. Frolik. <br />This was brought up and Councilmember Peterson and the previous Mayor, Jim <br />Gilbertson, had it tabled. There was only two accessory apartments granted at the time but <br />no ordinance covering it. He stated he asked the Planning Commission how many <br />accessory apartments could be here and was told that anyone from Northfork to River's <br />Bend can have one. He figured if there are 3,000 homes, it is possible then to have 3,000 <br />accessory apartments. If criteria is met, anyone can have an accessory apartment. He <br />added that this ordinance makes no mention of how many people can live in an accessory <br />apartment. Mr. Moss reported that he has a finished-off home of 1,050 square feet. <br />According to this ordinance, if a person has 1,500 square feet, he could put three people in <br />there. He suggested this should be granted on a case-by-case basis - possibly based on <br />need. He inquired what would be considered limited income. The way this is written, <br />anyone in the City of Ramsey can come before the Council and request an accessory <br />apartment. In some cities, there is a limit to the amount of apartments that can be built. <br />Ramsey does not have this. He cautioned this may be "opening up Pandora's Box". Mr. <br />Moss pointed out that Councilmember Peterson and Mr. Gilbertson also brought up taxing <br />the accessory apartment owners extra. The City Attorney had mentioned that you could not <br />do that because of the way the homestead credit is written. He felt that with accessory <br />apartments, there would be more services to provide and the renters would not be paying a <br />nickel. He felt that the ordinance should not be voted in the way it is now. <br /> <br />City Council/March 28, 1995 <br /> Page 8 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />