My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 09/25/2001
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2001
>
Agenda - Council - 09/25/2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 12:27:51 PM
Creation date
9/4/2003 2:57:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
09/25/2001
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.
/
369
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
upon the City Council's review of previous requests for a conditional use permit to maintain two <br />dwellings on a parcel, it would appear that Mr. and Mrs. Young's request for a second dwelling <br />would be considered new construction. This is not in accordance with the Council's desire to <br />rectify only existing non-conforming situations and their desire not to set a precedent in allowing <br />two dwellings on a parcel. Therefore Staff is recommending denial of Mr. and Mrs. Young's <br />request. <br /> <br />Citizen Input <br /> <br />Nancy Young, 6421 154th.Lane NW, Ramsey, stated this is not a rental is only <br />looking toward the future for them. This building would be only for~ needs to <br />come and live with them. Mrs. Young stated her son would like in their <br />eventually, and Don and Nancy could live in the dwelling garage, that <br />they have been in Ramsey for 32 years and-they have seen some'umque changes. One <br />she not~ced was on Industry Boulevard w~th four houses :f6i:~one dnvewa~g.= She smd she waS?? <br />unsure why this was permitted and it looks as though th~:~¢quest co~i~,bg permitted. This new <br />bmld~ng would not be seen by neighbors. She noted that i:h~£ar, aone~ofthe neighbors have <br />expressed negative comments. She further explained that t~¢~ii~ ~'~small house and it is not <br />conducive to having another person hve It ~s a 24 feet b?~:~!'feet home. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kociscak questioned would n6{: t to add an addition to <br />the existing home. <br /> <br />Mrs. Young explained they did, consider but'~it wasn't a cost benefit <br />because they need extra garake s~'eltoo. <br /> <br />Motion by ChairpersohlNixt, seconded~y Kociscak, to close the public hearing. <br /> <br />Motion Ca~ed. Voriag Yes: :.Chai~epaon::~N~;~C6~issioners Kociscak, Reeve, and Watson. <br />Voting No: None. Abs~nt::'~',d;~issioners JoMson and Sweet. <br /> <br />~e publi:c fi~'~g::e[~ at ~(};~. <br /> <br />commission Business -~::'~}}:',~ ~¢" <br /> <br />Chai~Son Nixt called ~}regular meeting of the Plamng. Co~ission back to order at 7:52 <br /> <br />Commissioner'Ko6isbik stated he would a~ee with the Staff and deny this request. He <br />explained he doei:'U~derstand the intent 0f the applicants, but this could set a precedent. <br /> <br />Mrs. Young stated she would ask that the Commissioners put themselves in someone else's <br />financial position. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/September 10, 2001 <br /> Page 5 of 24 <br /> <br />-23- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.