Laserfiche WebLink
size issues handled and enforced at City Hall's counter by staff; if the <br />applicant has a justifiable reason for requesting a variance, Planning and <br />Zoning should conduct the hearing and make reoommendations to Council; if <br />Planning and Zoning and City Council do not ooncur, the applicant could then <br />appeal at the courts level. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen stated that in his opinion, Ramsey's ordinance is attempting to <br />do something it really cannot do -- restrict business activity in residential <br />areas. Allowing people accessory structures to store their belongings would <br />enhance the appearance of many properties. <br /> <br />Mr. Sh[~way agreed with Mr. Hendriksen and added that he is concerned with <br />seeing Ra~sey's industrial park develop but there should be a way to allow the <br />mall businessman to get a start by using his residential property until such <br />time as he can afford to base on co~rercial property. <br /> <br />Mr. Ken Peterson stated that Planning and Zoning is concerned with selective <br />enforcement of ordinances; do not think the intent of the current ordinance was <br />to restrict business in residential areas. Rules for the Urban area will have <br />to be addressed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cox stated that there are some businesses in Ramsey's residential <br />areas that have been there for 15 years; they intended to move to commercial <br />property but when they see what the tax burden is in con~ercial areas, they <br />choose to remain in residential areas; once the City has allowed them to be in <br />residential areas, there isn't much the courts can do to change that. The <br />ordinance needs to be looked at with respect to height limitations and urban <br />areas; consideration should be given to creating a separate category for <br />parcels one acre or less in size. <br /> <br />Council~ember Sorteberg stated that most of the variance requests are fro~ <br />parcels one acre or less in size; the problem of too many variance requests <br />won't be solved unless the size restrictions are adjusted. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that the existing ordinance states that on 2-1/2 acres or <br />less the attached garage is restricted to 864 square feet and the detached <br />accessory structure is restricted to 624 square feet; one possible solution <br />would be to allow a total garage/accessory structure square footage of 1488; <br />in this way persons could take the unused portion of their attached garage <br />limitation and credit that amount of square footage to their accessory <br />structure. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schlueter agreed that Council has been selectively granting <br />variances and she has been a party to it in that she reviews the site involved <br />with each variance request. Size limits have to be set and Council must <br />enforce th~. Council~a~ber Schlueter stated that the City is getting more and <br />more variance requests for oversized buildings to store private property; these <br />applicants are arguing that for the protection of neighborhood children, the <br />City should grant the variance; is it the City's responsibility? <br /> <br />Mr. G6odrich stated that variances should be granted for unique circumstances; <br />collecting more than you can properly store is not unique. <br /> <br />Mayor Heitman stated that he is opposed to pole buildings on any parcel svaller <br /> October 1, 1985 <br /> <br />Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />