Agenda - Council - 01/08/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I ;I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Case #4: Request to Rezone Certain Property from R-1 Rural Residential to R-1 Urban Residential; Case of Oakwood Land Development, Inc. Principal Planner Trudge0n stated that on behalf of Jacob and Therese Barthold and Lee Kappedahl, Oakwood Land Development is requesting a rezoning of property in Section 14 from R-1 Rural Residential to R-1 Urban Residential to permit development of the subject property with single family residential lots served by sanitary sewer and municipal water. The property is approximately 9.7 acres in size· At Mr. Barthold's request, the subject property was part of a Comprehensive Plan amendment initiated in 1993 by the City of Ramsey for a MUSA boundary expansion. By the time the amendment was approved by Metro Council in 1995, a portion of Mr. Barthold's property, which is the subject of today's request, was not included in the official MUSA boundary expansion exhibit. The fact that this portion of Mr. Barthold's property is not in the MUSA came to light ~g the preliminary plat review of Apple Ridge (ensuing phases named River Pines) in 19~97~31'~.~preliminary plat for Apple Ridge was modified to eliminate this portion of Mr. Ba~01~t's proiS~. Therefore, the current Comprehensive Plan retains this property for s~ngle~;;fam~ly residential uses at rural standards. The March 2001 Draft Comprehensive Plan :o: subject property in the MUSA expansion area in order to complete the Addition dead ends on the wes' public safety concern since foot wide dead end does not provi¢ operation of municipal maintenance Pines 5th Addition will extend 158th ons. The fact that 158t~ Lane in R/ver Pines 2nd subject property is problematic and presents a end is greater than 600 feet. In addition, a 66- amount of area for the safe and efficient snow plows· Development of River then intersect with Lithium Street NW, which is proposed to be extended of Apple Ridge to the north boundary of the proposed River Pines5th.This street exten ~laneviate a major issue for .the Public Works Department with respect to the curren~t;58 ~d6~id~eff~;~ Because the March 2001 draft- Coml~rehensive~ Plan has not been adopted ~ ~:,~:~ ~ Co~'l~, apprOval of the requested .... ~; :, T~~ ~:.. ~ . rezomng w~ll have to be cond~tmned on ~ ~enflment ~the c~nt Comprehensive PI~ to . expand the MUSA boundau to ~nclude the subject prope~. ~e r~g~est for a comprehensive plan amendment for an expansion of the ~SA b0finda~ is also ~ 's Council agenda for a decision· ~e Pia~ing CO~ission met on September bl ~ conducted a public heanng regarding the proposed rezomng. ~ere were no w~6h co~ents subm~ed to the ~d there was one resident present at the he~ng that opposed ~e rezoning. ~other resident w~ted to be sure that ~mre access was pla~ed to ~e no~h. '~e Pla~g Co~ission reco~ended that City Council approve the rezo~ng request. If CiW Council approves of the comprehensive plan amendment ~d the rezo~ng, Staff is reco~ending adoption of the findings of fact and introducing the ordinance to rezone the prope~ to~ght. ~e rezo~ng ordinance will be submitted to CiW Council for fmal adoption if ~d when the Metropolitan Council has approved the request for the ~SA exp~sion. Councilmember Anderson inquired if the issue regarding the snowplowing problem resolved. Principal Planner Trudgeon replied yes, and reviewed the proposed layout of the site. City Council/December 11, 2001 Page 17 of 25 -61-