Laserfiche WebLink
Motion carried. Voting Yes: :MaY°r Gamee; 'Councilmembers Elvig, Jeffrey, Cook, Olson, <br />?carson, and Strommen. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case/ti 1: <br /> <br />Adopt OrdinanCe to Amend R-1 Residential - Rural Developing District of <br />City Code; Case of City of Ramsey <br /> <br />Community Development Director TrUdgeon eXplained the proposed ordinance would allow <br />development at the 2-½ acre density, but restrict lot sizes to smaller lots clustered in one area of <br />the property. The remainder of the parcel cOUldbe developed when and if City sewer is available <br />to that parcel. The City Council introduced the ordinance at the February 8, 2005 meeting. <br />There were several questions relating to reqUirements for communal septic systems and their <br />abandonment. The MinnesOta Pollution !Control Agency (MPCA) has standards in place for <br />property abandonment of septic systems, ~indiVidual or communal. City staff currently works <br />with property owners who are transit[oning from septic systems to sewer and water, to ensure <br />that existing systems are properlY abandoned per MPCA requirements. Staff has added some <br />language under G. - Design of Sewer and Water Facilities to further clarify this requirement. <br /> <br />Community Development DirectOr Trudgeon indicated staff has also added some language to <br />sections C. - Urban Development Plan Required and D. - Additional Plat Requirements. Staff <br />had some concerns that these two requirements may be burdensome to property owners wishing <br />to create only one new lot, and that the City Council may wish to allow an exception to these <br />requirements. It is important to ri. otc that all other sections of this code would still apply. Staff <br />feels that exceptions to these requirements shoUld be granted on a case-by-case basis. This is a <br />change from the draft ordinance that was introduced at the February 8th meeting, and staff is <br />looking for Council direction on this addition, <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen noted there is a typo on page 230, C6 should be corrected to state <br />"...may be waived...". She stressed the need to address clustering for open space preservation, as <br />this ordinance relates to rural preservation. <br /> <br />Councihnember Elvig suggested a consUltant:be hired to address the layout of greenspace <br />corridors. The consultant could look at somelof the smaller projects and how they would relate <br />to thc overall greenspace plan. <br /> <br />Corem unity Development DirectOr Trudgeon nOted open space preservation is briefly mentioned <br />ill this ordinance. Subd. 6(e) states "...The City Council and the developer may also negotiate <br />scenic and conservation easements for high-Value open space located within proposed cluster <br />sttbd i w s! OhS. <br /> <br />Councihnember Cook stated it is import0-nt .to know the areas designated in the greenspace <br />comprehensive plan as these developments come in. This needs to be addressed quickly, as there <br />will likely be a lot of requests when this opens.up. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon suggested the greenspace topic be discussed at the <br />joint meeting with the Planning Commission On Thursday. <br /> <br /> City Council/February 22, 2005 <br /> Page 1'7 of 31 <br /> <br /> <br />