Laserfiche WebLink
The site location map and a copy of Mr. Gobernatz's request is enclosed. The request was <br />forwarded to the City's Comprehensive Plan consultant, Hoisington Koegler, for review and <br />comment. Mr. Scheib's response dated March 15, 1998 is enclosed for your review. Basically, <br />it states that the consultants are developing two concepts for the comprehensive plan and Mr. <br />Gobematz's proposed density of 3 units in 35+ acres would meet the rural density restrictions <br />under both scenarios. <br /> <br />With respect to the 5 criteria for granting exceptions, Council recommends the following <br />findings <br /> <br />1. Are there special circumstances or conditions such that strict application would deprive <br />the petitioner of reasonable use. <br /> <br />Finding: It is likely that the land use for Mr. Gobernatz's property will not change from rural <br />residential with the updating of the comprehensive plan. And, the consultants have stated that <br />under the two concepts being developed for the furore of Ramsey, Mr. Gobematz's proposal for <br />3 lots in 35 acres would meet the density restrictions in either scenario. If the outcome of the <br />comprehensive plan will have minimal impact on Mr. Oobematz's property, then forcing <br />cohabitation between Mr. Gobematz and his daughter's family by prohibiting the construction of <br />her own home on the family estate via the subdivision moratorium (for possibly another <br />construction season) is a hardship. <br /> <br />2. That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial <br />property right of the petitioner. <br /> <br />Finding: Subdivision of the family estate for the benefit of the heirs is a substantial property <br />right that is being interrupted by the moratorium. <br /> <br />3. That granting the exception will not be detrimentai to the public welfare or injurious to <br />other property in the area. <br /> <br />Finding: Development of one or two more single family homes on the 35 acre parcel is exceeds <br />the existing density ratio in the area and current density restrictions of 4 units in 40 acres and <br />therefore will not be injurious to other property in the area or detrimental to the public welfare. <br /> <br />4. That the granting of the exception will be harmonious with and in accordance with the <br />objectives of the existing Comprehensive Plan and will not adversely affect the planning process <br />for adoption of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Finding: The current Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for rural residential development <br />and it is highly unlikely that the 1998 update will alter that use. Further, the comprehensive plan <br />consultant has indicated that the subdivision proposal will have no adverse impacts on the <br />current comprehensive plan process. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />