Agenda - Council - 09/13/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

included in the MUSA and consist of the larger, rural lots ran~ng in size from 1 to 2.5 a~e~fi~d are served by on-site well and septic. The current Comprehensive Plan targets residential development with urban services. In accordance with City Code~!i~?keneraf~'~¢~? development plan accomparfied the application for rezoning. Although the gene~/ii:~lopment plan is not in compliance with current performance standards, it does reflect the property with single family urban lots. Approval of the rezoning ~be bas~'~ii~?~he Comprehensive Plan and the Applicant's intent to develop the prop th single residential lots. The platting process will review the proposal with .?~pect' sizes, dens~. tree preservation, street layouts, grading and drainage plans, sewe ~storn~'":~er plans, etc.?~ The Planning Commission opened the pubhc heanng on Jun~:~i:2000. :;5~yeral residents were present opposing the proposal because when they bought m!~:::.Redley Estates 1, 2 and 3, they were told the balance of the property would also be deve~/~i~f~'with o~:;~e lots. Residents and 'Planning Commissioners also raised questions whic. k red legal ise. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to July 1:072¢0'01 ~d requ~?."~g~City Attorney be present to address any legal issues. The Planning CommissfSh~i}~.~S~, _,'~kd ~3' public heahng at their regular meeting on July 10, 2000, and the City AttorneY':wa~;::~resent at the meeting. In response to a legal question raised, City Attorney Goodr/cf:;?~onded ~at the current comprehensive plan shows the subject, property in the MUSA and S ~am, uire cities to be in conformance with their compfet~bnsi~e plans. Unless there ~!;' ~tive, negative findings, the City should rezone(.'i~'!ip;3b~}to::R-.1 Urban Reside~f~;' The request was presented to the City Council,:0~ J(iiY~J, 2000. 'C~ ~ber ~ddf~dh was not present and at her request, the case was tamed untii;:}Xhgx~st 8, 2000~::6fd~:::~gt~)he might participate in the discussion and action. On August 8?.ga00, the:;SC~ C° ~iscussed the fact that this development proposal was the subject t~i:!k. [~"'lawsuit~h has been appealed by the developer. Coun~i!.passe.d. a motion to der~ ~::'~iecision on '~e request for rezoning until their regular meeting .on Au~mxstl}.2_2, 2000. The pu~ose of the delay was to provide the City Council an opportunity t~:meet witfi l~al council repr~tip~';the City in ti'tis legal matter. Motion'~'?~ouncdmembe?'~ndriksen, sec~;~y Councilmember Connolly, to introduce Ordinance # ': ::.,rezoning 'fiertain property irt section 24 from R-1 Rural Residential to R-1 Urban Residential and ~0 diredt st~'fft~3' pre~;~rcdi~gs of fact. .~,<(.?'~tion~ carded. Vofing"y?s: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Hendriksen, Connolly, Anderson, ,~ :. ,.~ ,. -.~ Case #7: '~:!Consideration of Quit Claim of Remnant Parcel North of Riverdale Drive City AttorneY·'iGoodrich stated that this parcel receives its sewer and water access off of ':'~;Riverdale .Dr/be NW. However, this parcel has no direct access to Riverdale Drive NW and 'iherefor~~ thd sewer and water that provides service to this lot is on property wh/ch is owned by the'. City of Ramsey. The triangular parcel was acquired when the right-of-way for Riverdale Drive NW was obtained. In order to clear up the title the City has been asked to quit claim this City Council/August 22, 2000 Page 13 of 18 -111-