Agenda - Council - 03/10/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I !1 ! I I I I I I I on development in the City of Ramsey was primarily for the purpose of determining the impact of new residential development on existing residential developments. Mr. Martin's property will have little impact on existing residential development because of its surrounding land uses. Per Council's request on February 24, Mr. Scheib's letter also explains the roles of'the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinances as it pertains to Item #4 Enclosed for your information is Mr. Martin's request for exception, site location map, letter from Anoka County dated March 2, 1998, letter from Hoisington Koegler dated March 5, 1998, letter from developers of sports bar dated March 5, 1998. Recommendation: With respect to the exception criteria, the City Staff recommends the following findings: Criteria 1: That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that the strict application of the provisions of this Moratorium Ordinance would deprive the petitioner of the reasonable use of petitioner's land. Finding: Mr. Martin's circumstance is special because the property is platted and requires no 'subdividing'; the platting process is necessary to change the designation of the property to one that is eligible for a building permit. Platted commermal lots approximately 1,000 feet w~_of,~ the subject property are also outside the MUSA, but are not subject to the~._moratorium and eligible for development if the proposed use does not require a rezoning._~.~ ~:.. ,~ ~/,/"~"~. ?,c ~-~ ..~ Criteria 2: That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjogmem_of a substantial property right of the petitioner. Finding: Mr. Martin has cooperated with the City for years for an orderly development plan for his property and the river crossing. He should be afforded property rights equal to that of other owners of platted commercial property outside the MUSA that a~e not subject to the moratorium. Criteria '3: That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated. Finding: It is staff's opinion that the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area. I I I Criteria 4: That the proposed exception will be harmonious with and in accordance with the specific objectives of the City's existing Comprehensive Plan and will not adversely affect the planning process for adoption of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan above described. Finding: The proposed use of the property is in compliance with the City's current comprehensive plan and the City's planning consultant, Hoisington Koegler, has indicated that the development of the property at this time will not impact the outcome of the comprehensive plan update.