Laserfiche WebLink
Case #5 Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Case of City of Ramsey <br /> <br />Presentation <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon advised the 2001 Comprehensive Plan <br />shows the property south of Highway 10, west of the wayside rest area as Low Density <br />Residential. At the May 1st, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, City Staff brought forward the <br />rezoning of these properties to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. During the Public Hearing, <br />the property owners brought forward their concerns regarding changing their property to R-1 <br />Residential zoning, suggesting that business was a better use of the Highway 10 property than <br />residential. He indicated the Planning Commission tabled action on the rezoning and directed <br />staff to forward the matter to the City Council for its consideration. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon further advised the City Council reviewed <br />the matter at their June 10, 2003 work session. After discussing possible appropriate uses for the <br />property, the City Council directed staff to draft a comprehensive plan amendment to change the <br />northern third of the properties to Places to Shop and the southern portion to Low Density <br />Residential. The Council indicated that residential uses were most appropriate directly on the <br />Mississippi River, while commercial uses were more appropriate directly on Highway 10. He <br />indicated the parcels are large enough to accommodate both types of development in the area. <br />He stated Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. <br /> <br />Chairperson Johnson asked what the zoning is on the other side of the city. Assistant <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon stated he does not believe Staff has an answer. He <br />thinks it is commercial uses, but he does not know what zoning it is. <br /> <br />Public Hearing <br />Tom Austin, 9404 Highway 10, stated his home is the white stripe on the map. He indicated five <br />years ago they decided to build a home there, after purchasing the property two or three years <br />prior to that. He explained there was a home on it when they bought it that was being rented, and <br />in the process of refurbishing the house they determined it was beyond repair. When they <br />decided to build a new home they found it was zoned commercial, so he had to have it rezoned <br />residential. He indicated there was really only three lots there; one empty and two with homes. <br />He believes it should be residential, and he believes the farm already has a plat on record to <br />subdivide it. <br /> <br />Joe Nathe indicated he owns the majority of the piece in question. He stated his brother was here <br />when they tried to rezone it from B-1 to R-1. He indicated Highway 10 is a death trap, and no <br />one would buy a home on this land. He noted the other side of Highway 10 is already zoned <br />commercial, and if you look at the property you can see it should not be anything except <br />commercial. He indicated it has been commercial since he has owned it, which has been since <br />1980. He stated the property was not for sale, and noted he was in agreement with this proposal, <br />but was not in agreement with the previous one. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/August 7, 2003 <br /> Page 11 of 19 <br /> <br /> <br />