Laserfiche WebLink
Further Discussion: Councilmember DeLuca inquired as to Mr. Gilles' intent for the <br />second dwelling unit. Ms. Frolik replied that the second unit was to provide living quarters <br />for Mr. Gilles' mother and handicapped sister. Mr. Banwart stated that Ms. Frolik has <br />researched and generally, suburbs do not allow for mother-in-law or accessory apartments. <br />Councilmember DeLuca stated that he is in favor of accessory apartments as they decrease <br />the need to institutionalize senior citizens. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilmembers DeLuca, Pearson, Cich <br />and Peterson. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case //9: Review Horse Ordinance: <br /> <br />Mr. Terry Hendriksen from the Planning and Zoning Commission was present and <br />proceeded to review the proposed amendment to the Horse Ordinance, and the reasoning <br />that went into it's drafting. Mr. Hendriksen noted that Ramsey's current ordinance is <br />unworkable and generally being violated. The current ordinance requires 3 acres per horse <br />and it is not realistic to require an increment of 3 acres for each additional horse. <br /> <br />Mayor Reimann stated that he agrees that 3 acre increments for additional horses may need <br />to be revised; he is also in favor of Councilmember DeLuca's suggestion to zone certain <br />neighborhoods as appropriate for the keeping of horses. <br /> <br />Councilmember DeLuca stated he agrees that acreage increments for additional horses can <br />be redefined but that he is very much in favor of zoning certain areas for horses; the intent <br />of the 3 acre per horse requirement was to set density limits for horse population just as the <br />City does to control the density of people population. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen stated that zoning for horses would have been accomplished with the Rural <br />versus Urban zoning. Mr. Hendriksen suggested that the proposed amendment be revised <br />maintain the initial acreage requirement at 3 acres but allow for 2 rather than 1 horse on the <br />initial increment as they are herd animals and and reduce the increments required for the <br />third and additional horses. <br /> <br />Councilmember DeLuca stated that the section of the proposed ordinance addressing <br />accumulation of manure should address any number of horse density. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen stated that when the horse density is less than one/half acre, the elements <br />work manure into the soil. <br /> <br />Councilmember DeLuca expressed concern that the Police Chief is not equipped to <br />impound horses as stated in the proposed ordinance; there is also concern for the safety of <br />the proposed horseman's committee in exercising their policing power. <br /> <br />Council consensus was that the intial acreage increment should remain at 3 acres. <br />Councilmember DeLuca was of the opinion that no horses should be allowed on less than 3 <br />acres south of the MWCC boundary. <br /> <br />Council consensus was to place the horse ordinance review on the May 9 Council agenda <br />for further discussion. <br /> <br />City Council/April 25, 1989 <br />Page 12 of 17 <br /> <br /> <br />