My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 06/27/1995
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1995
>
Agenda - Council - 06/27/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2025 3:38:24 PM
Creation date
9/26/2003 11:33:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
06/27/1995
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
340
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Peterson, fieahen, Beyer <br />and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. <br />Case #4: Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Group Foster Care <br />Home; Case of Patrick McLafferty <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik stated that Patrick McLafferty of 7321 - 154th Lane N.W. has <br />applied for a group foster care home to accommodate a maximum of eight youth. The City <br />Staff has met with City Attorney Goodrich concerning this subject and its relations to <br />§462.357, Subdivisions 7 and 8. It was Mr. Goodrich's opinion that a State - licensed, <br />residential facility, serving from 7 to 16 persons, is not exempted from the local R -1 <br />Residential zoning regulations. In order to be so exempted, such a facility would need to <br />be located in a multi- family use district such as Ramsey's R -3 Residential zone. A State <br />licensed residential facility serving six or fewer persons would be exempted from the City's <br />R -1 zoning regulations. It was further Mr. Goodrich's opinion that to locate a multi - family <br />use or facility serving 7 to 16 persons in an R -1 zoning district in effect rezones that <br />property to multi - family, which then becomes a matter of spot zoning, which is <br />inappropriate. It was Mr. Goodrich's advice that the present application to increase the <br />number of youth served at the facility from 6 to 8 be denied, because more than 6 is <br />considered a multi - family use in the City's R -1 zone and it does not have a State law <br />exemption. Ms. Frolik reported that Mr. McLafferty expressed a desire to pursue the issue <br />and open the public hearing, despite Mr. Goodrich's advice. Such public hearing, which <br />initiated the conditional use permit process, was conducted by the Planning Commission. <br />Following the advice of the City Attorney, the Planning Commission considered the matter <br />from a zoning perspective, the proposed findings of facts, and recommended that City <br />Council deny the request. Ms. Frolik explained that item #12 of the proposed findings of <br />facts attempts to establish Ramsey's history and regulations for allowing multi- family type <br />uses in single family districts. It states that permits for multi- family uses in a single - family <br />district have not been allowed since 1976. Actually, it was 1977 and on two separate <br />occasions the City allowed duplexes in a single family district. However, if we consider <br />accessory apartments as a multi- family use, then the City has permitted multi- family uses in <br />the single family district as recently as 1994. In addition, the finding, as drafted, states that <br />there are no provisions in the City ordinances for multi- family uses without City sewer and <br />water. The regulations for the R -3 Urban Residential District does establish minimums for <br />multi- family structures, with and without City sewer and water. She recommended that <br />item #12 of the proposed finding be amended accordingly. <br />Patrick McLafferty, 7321 - 154th Lane N.W., resented his home being referred to as a <br />"facility" He stated he is licensed for foster care and he has never heard of all this before. <br />He was informed he had to have a permit for eight children instead of six and he felt that all <br />the issues have been addressed. A conditional use permit versus zoning is the way he was <br />originally told to approach this and now he's being told this is a spot zoning issue. He <br />;proceeded to address some of the concerns raised. 1) Traffic - with two more children the <br />Only additional traffic may be one more car a month because of the social worker visit. He <br />suggested that the two day cares in his neighborhood (one with 10 children and one with <br />14 children) generate a lot more traffic on a daily basis. 2) Devaluation - he reported that <br />he had to put $20,000 of work into his home before he could move into it plus he added on <br />a $100,000 addition. It does not make sense that this could devaluate the surrounding <br />-properties. 3) Police calls - he stated he has two attributable police calls to his home and <br />he was the one who made them. He reported that he has only teenaged boys and he is very <br />strict. He calls the police if something comes up. He added that he checked with the police <br />department and 76 calls were made to his neighborhood - two of them were to his house. <br />He stated he has done everything legally that he can. He reminded Council that the subject <br />City Council /April 25, 1995 <br />rw Page 10 of 23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.