Resolution - #96-09-269 - 09/24/1996

Home

That the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pursuant to Section 9.03.03 of the City Code on July 2, 1996, and that said public hearing was properly advertised and that the minutes of said public hearing are hereby incorporated by reference. 5. The total area of the property to be rezoned is approximately eleven (11) acres. 4 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. g47 is zoned Planned Unit Development. That on July 2, the Planning Commission recommended that City Council approve the rezoning amendment but at the same time, expressed concern with the development potential for a parcel zoned for urban densities located in the midst of a mrai residential area if the church does not become a reality. That on July 23, 1996, the Ramsey City Cotmcil 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 July 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. 10. 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 I acre single family residential lots under the R-3 Urban Residential zoning. 11. That the Subject Property does not have municipal water and sanitary sewer available to it. 12. That on August 13, 1996, City Staff also informed City Council that Minnesota courts have ruled that churches should not be excluded from any residential district unless such exclusion is necessary in furtherance of the public health, safety and general welfare. 13. That it is not proper planning to create urban parcels in rural districts. 14. That the proposed zoning amendment will not substantially adversely impair the use or market value of any surrounding property. 15. That the proposed zoning amendment will have the potential to change the essential character of the area. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Beahen and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Glen Hardin Councilmember Sheila Beyer Counciimember Carolyn Beahen Councilmember Kenneth Peterson Councilmember Gerald Zimmerman and the following voted against the same: None RESOLUTION g96-09-269 Page 2 of 3