Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 10/10/2001

Home

application proposes to develop the property with townhomes. The current Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for development with industrial uses. Tho March 2001 Draft Comprehensive Plan continues to show this area as 'places to work'. If the City is inclined to rezone the property for medium density residential development, the etu'rent comprehensive plan would have to be amended. In addition, the March 200t draft Comprehensive Plan would also have to be modified accordingly. The development property is bounded on the north and east by single family urban residential development. There are two smaller parcels south and west of the property that ara zoned Industrial. Cormexus occupies the property on the south side of Industry Avenue. The land on the west side of Ramsay Boulevard is zoned Industrial and is vacant except for two lawful non-conlbrming residences. The March 2001 Draft Comprehensive Plan currently shows development of the property, on the west side of Ramsay Boulevard with Iow and medium density residential uses. The Applicant has stated that an urban residential usa of the property would be more compatible with the existing urban single family neighborhood (Regency Pond) on the east and the planned urban residential uses on the west side of Ramsay Boulevard. He has stated that it would also provide a buffer between Regency Pond and Ramsay Boulevard. However, there has been a long-standing effort on the part of the City Councils to preserve this property for industrial uses. The Planning Commission conducted the public heating on August 7 and there were several property owners from the subject area present to urge the City to retain the property, for industrial uses. The residents based their comments on concern for property values and trafI~c safety.. Mayor Gamec received a petition from residents opposing the razoning. Brad Thorud, 14821 Kamacite Street NW, Ramsay, stated that he wa.s asked to be the spokesperson tbr the neig~hbodng residents. He stated that the residents are opposed to the property being rezoned to high density. Mayor Gamec stated that he has received numerous calls from neighboring residents and the consensus seems to be that they would prefer to have single family homes developed on the site. N[r. Thorud replied that he did not think anyone would oppose single family homes. Councilmember Zimmerman stated that in order to rezone a piece of property there should be an overwhelming reason to do so and in th./s case that is not present. Fie felt that the property should be left zoned as is. City. Attorney Goodrich presented the following additional findings of fact that should be added: That Minn. Stat. 473.858,473.865, and 462.387 all mandate that a city may not adopt zoning ordinance amendments, which are in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan. That interested persons residing near the subject property have filed a petition with the City opposing the rezoning request. The petition contains approximately 87 sig'natures. That at the public hearing held on this matter, property, owners residing near the subject property testitied that the proposed rezoning would devalue their property and create City Council/August 28, 2001 Page 15 of 36