Agenda - Council - 09/24/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. That the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pursuant to Section 9.03.03 of ' the City Code on July 2, 1996, and that sa_id public hearing was properly advertised and that the minutes of said public hearing are hereby incorporated by reference. The total area of the property to be rezoned is approximately eleven (11) acres. The Subject Property is surrounded by single family rural residential zoning to the north, south and east; the property on the west side of T.H. #47 is zoned Planned Unit Development. That on July 2, the Planning Commission recommended that City Council approve the rezoning 'lamendment but at the same time, expressed concern with the development potential for a parcel zoned for urban densities located in the midst of a rural residential area if the chtm. ch does not become a reality. That on J[uly 23, 1996, the Ramsey City Council accepted the recommendation of the Planning Commission and adopted Resolution 96-07-176 adopting Findings of Fact g0404 relating to[ the rezonig request and introduced the ordinance. That on Ju~ly 23, 1996, the Ramsey City Council also expressed concern with alternative development options for an urban residential parcel in a rural residential district if the church does not become a reality. That City !Code is not specific enough to apply 4 in 40 density zoning to urban zoned parcels that do not have sewer and water available to them. Without the availability of municipal 'services, the property is eligible for development with 1 acre single family residentialglots under the R-3 Urban Residential zoning. That the SUbject Property does not have municipal water and sanitary sewer available to it. That on Aegust 13, I996, City Staff also informed City Council that Minnesota courts have ruled that}churches should not be excluded from any residential district unless such exclusion i,s necessary in furtherance of the public health, safety and general welfare. That it is not proper planning to create urban parcels in rural districts. That the proposed zoning amendment will not substantially adversely impair the use or market value of any surrounding property. That the proposed zoning amendment will have the potential to change the essential character oi~ the area. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember anrd upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: and the following abstained: