My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
04/25/2002
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Chapter 9 Committee
>
Minutes
>
2002
>
04/25/2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2025 1:33:08 PM
Creation date
4/26/2024 10:46:50 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
anywhere in the City, that will create more problems. He felt that the City was heading down a <br />dangerous road. <br />The City will not have areas of commonality; there will be a lot of conflicting uses next to each <br />other. To make the situation worse, they will not have a steady line of the MUSA as they have <br />had in the past. <br />Councilmember Kurak stated that R-1 is not the issue, the issue is the size of the lot regardless of <br />the MUSA line. <br />Mr. Gordon explained that in the proposed ordinance, the R-1 district will be the only single- <br />family district and the way the code is written there will be four single-family sub -districts. Within <br />the four groups, one has more urban standards and the other three are more rural. <br />Councilmember Hendriksen replied that if the MUSA is placed anywhere in the City they could <br />have 10,000 square foot lots in a very rural area. <br />Mr. Gordon noted that the Met Council has not made any decisions regarding the MUSA line at <br />this point. <br />Councilmember Hendriksen replied that he understands the proposal is that if a City is part of the <br />MUSA, the line could be located in any location if there is the capacity. <br />Mr. Gordon replied that that currently is not the case. If the MUSA changes then they need to <br />consider it further. <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated that they should plan on it happening. <br />Mr. Gordon replied that they need to focus on what is currently in the Comprehensive Plan; if <br />things change then they will need to change the Comprehensive Plan. <br />Councilmember Hendriksen inquired if the code assumes that the mother in law is truly a relative. <br />Councilmember Anderson replied that the ordinance presented does not. <br />Mr. Gordon noted that the Chaska ordinance would open it up to anyone. <br />Commissioner Watson stated that he would be uncomfortable with that. <br />Mr. Gordon inquired if the Committee was comfortable with keeping accessory apartments as <br />item I on their permitted use or take it out until they are ready to adopt performance standards. <br />Consensus was to omit accessory apartments with the intention of brining it back. <br />Chapter 9/April 25, 2002 <br />Page 6 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.