Laserfiche WebLink
7. That the Planning Commission on July 10, 2000, unanimously recommended approval of the <br />• <br />rezoning application. <br />8. That the adjacent surrounding properties were developed prior to being included in the <br />MUSA at rural residential standards with one acre and larger lot sizes. <br />9. That Section 9.20.03 of the Ramsey City Code states that the intent of the R -1 Rural <br />Residential District is to accommodate single - family dwelling units on land outside the <br />MUSA. <br />10. That Section 9.20.03 of the Ramsey City Code states that the intent of the R -1 Urban <br />Residential District is to accommodate single - family dwelling units on land that lies within <br />the MUSA. <br />10b. That the 1993 Comprehensive Plan amendment allowed development on one -acre lots. <br />11. That the Subject Property was included in the MUSA by a Comprehensive Plan amendment <br />approved by the City Council on November 9, 1993 (Resolution #93 -11 -268) and the <br />Metropolitan Council on January 12, 1995. <br />12. That the Applicant has provided the City with a concept or general development plan <br />received by the City on May 15, 2000, which concept plan reflects the Applicant's intent to <br />develop the Subject Property with single family residential lots that will be served by sanitary <br />sewer and municipal water. The concept plan is not in conformance with the City's current <br />performance standards for single family urban development in the R -1 Urban residential <br />District because some of the lots do not meet the minimum lot standards. <br />13. Based on the testimony of residents living in the adjacent surrounding properties, the <br />proposed zoning amendment will substantially adversely impair the use or market value of <br />the surrounding property. <br />14. That the proposed zoning amendment will change the essential character of the area, which <br />consists of rural residential lots with a minimum size of one acre. <br />15. The City has received a petition from the adjoining neighborhood that one available outlet <br />from the subject property to Highway #47, the main thoroughfare serving the subject <br />property is via 156 Avenue NW, which is a non - signalized intersection. This intersection is <br />not sufficient to accommodate the traffic from the proposed development in a safe manner. <br />16. That the City has prepared a Comprehensive Plan update which was forwarded to the <br />Metropolitan Council in December, 1999 (the "1999 Plan "). The metropolitan Council is <br />currently reviewing the 1999 Plan and is expected to act on the 1999 Plan on about <br />November 1, 2000, at which time it will be referred to the City Council for final review and <br />adoption. <br />RESOLUTION #00 -09 -232 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />