Agenda - Council - 06/14/2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Bcdnarczyk indicated the building and parking lot are close to 141st, then there is a massive truck turn around and then a berm. He stated that beyond that is a hard packed surface used for truck storage. Commissioner Johnson asked if the applicant had any comments on Staff's concerns. Mr. Bcdnarczyk stated he talked with Staff, and asked if this location is not appropriate, if Ramsey has any other area that would be appropriate. He indicated there are no inside and outside playing fields in the Twin Cities, adding they already draw from outside the seven county area, and with an outdoor arena that would increase. Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Van Scoy, to close the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Johnson, Van Scoy, Brauer, I~cvinc, and Watson. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Shepherd. Commission Input Commissioner Johnson indicated he shares Staff's concerns, and has not heard anything that would overcome them. Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Brauer, to recommend that City Council adopt Findings of Fact unfavorable to the applicant relating to the request for an interim use pcrlnit to establish an outdoor paintball course, as follows: 1~12. As stated 13. Tt~at the proposed use will be potentially dangerous or detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity of the use, or to the public welfare. 14. That the proposed use will substantially adversely impair the use, enjoyment or market value of any surrounding property. 15. That the proposed use will not be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will change the essential character of the area. 16. That the proposed use will not be harmonious with and in accordance with the specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan since the Comprehensive Plan identifies the Subject Property as Places to Work, which is not consistent with the proposed use. 17. That the proposed use will be hazardous to existing or future neighboring uses. 18. That the proposed use will be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. 19. That the proposed use will not be a substantial improvement to the property. 20. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, such as highways, streets, police and fire protection. Planning Commission/April 21, 2005 Page 4 of 23