Agenda - Council - 04/25/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I CASE # 4 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP FOSTER CARE ~ HOME; CASE OF PATRICK MC LAFFERTY By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik Background: Patrick McLafferty! of 7321 154th Lane N.W. has applied for a group foster care home to accommodate a maxtmum of eight (8) youth. Observations: ~ As reported to the Planning Commission at their meeting in March, City Staff has met with City Attorney Goodrich {ioncerning this subject and its relationship to MS462.357, Subdivisions 7 and 8. It is Mr. Goodr~ch's opinion that a state licensed residential facility serving from 7 to 16 persons is not exen~pted from the local l~-I Residential zoning regulations. In order to be s,o_ exempted, such a faq~ility would need to be located in a multi-family use district such as Ramsey s R-~ Residential zone_. A State licensed residential facility serving 6 or fewer persons would be exempted from the ~ity's R-1 zoning regulations. It is further Mr. Goodrich's opinion that to locate a multi-fami~ use or facility serving 7 to 16 persons in an R-1 zoning district in effect rezones that proper~y to multi-family, which then becomes a matter of spot zoning, which is inappropriate. It wag Mr. Goodrich's advice that the present application to increase the number of youth served at the fhcility from 6 to 8 be denied because more than 6 is considered a multi-family use in the City's R-l!zone and it does not have a State law exemption per either Subdivision 7 or 8 of MS462.357. However, when the!March Planning Commission meeting was called to order, Mr. McLafferty expressed a desire t~ pursue the issue and open the public hearing despite Mr. Goodrich's advice to reject the application and refund the application fee. The Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing and itlwas continued to the April meeting. On April 4, the Planbing Commission reconvened the public hearing. Because the public heating was conducted, it ih effect initiated the conditional use permit process and rejection of the application was noilonger an option. Upon the advice of the City Attorney, the Planning Commission procee4ed to consider the matter from a zoning perspective, proposed findings of fact and recommended that City Council deny the request. The following items ~e enclosed: a) b) c) d) e) Site l~afion map Cops of MS462.357, Subdivisions 7 and 8 Plam~ing Commission public hearing minutes dated March 7, 1995 Draf~ of Planning Commission public hearing and regular meeting minutes dated Aprill4, 1995 PropOsed findings of fact Item #12 of the proposed findings of facts attempts to establish Ramsey's history and regulations for allowing multi-f ,.~nily type uses in single family districts. It states that permits for multi-family uses in a single family district have not been allowed since 1976. Actually, it was 1977 and on two separate occasipns the City allowed duplexes in a single family district. However, if we consider accessory apartments as a multi-family use, then the City has permitted multi-family uses in the single family .~istrict as recently as 1994. In addition, the finding as drafted states that there are no provisions iri City ordinances for multi-family uses without city sewer and water. The regulations for the R-3 Urban Residential District does establish minimums for multi-family structures, with and ~ithout city sewer and water. City Staff is recommending that the finding be amended accordingly. /de