My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
01/31/2002
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Chapter 9 Committee
>
Minutes
>
2002
>
01/31/2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2025 1:33:08 PM
Creation date
4/26/2024 10:43:46 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
Councilmember Hendriksen noted that Subd. 9 Revocation of the Conditional Use Permit might <br />be the area to address his concerns. He suggested making the revocation for non -uses in a year <br />go through the process, and if that were done his concerns would be elevated. <br />Councilmember Anderson requested that the language in Subd. 3. Standards for Issuance be <br />clarified. <br />The Chapter 9 Committee reviewed 9.03.05 Variances, Subdivision 2.b.2. and there was some <br />confusion regarding the intent of the language. Mr. Gordon noted that they would review the <br />language further and bring it back for further consideration and explanation. <br />Mr. Gordon noted that the distinction between a major and minor variance was removed from <br />City Code. <br />Councilmember Hendriksen inquired as to what was considered a minor variance. <br />Mr. Gordon replied structure location, or a road easement for examples. <br />Chairperson Nixt inquired if there was a fee difference. <br />Community Development Assistant Wald replied no. <br />Chairperson Nixt inquired if the notification and review procedure was the same for both types of <br />variances. <br />Community Development Assistant Wald replied yes. <br />Chairperson Nixt gave brief summary of the distinct differences between and a major and a minor <br />variance. <br />Councilmember Zimmerman inquired if the Committee felt that they should continue to use the <br />terms major and minor. <br />Mayor Gamec replied that all variances are handled the same and should simply be considered a <br />variance rather than a major or a minor variance. <br />Councilmember Hendriksen noted that it did not appear that the language for the minor variance <br />was the same as a major variance. <br />Chairperson Nixt noted that the only difference has to do with the amount of information that is <br />required. He recommended that within the variance request certain requirements would not apply <br />if the old minor variance requirements were met. <br />Mr. Gordon recommended keeping the evaluation criteria the same and then if the City wants less <br />information they can do that depending on the case. <br />Chapter 9 Committee/January 31, 2002 <br />Page 7 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.