Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR EXCEPTION FROM DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM; <br />CASE OF RON TALLMAN <br />By: Amy Geisler, AICP, Associate Planner <br />CASE # <br />Background: <br />The R -1 Residential Rural Developing district is currently under a moratorium for the <br />subdivision of land. The purpose of the moratorium is to provide time for the Planning <br />Commission and City Council to review R -1 Residential District requirements governing cluster <br />subdivision proposals. The moratorium is set to expire February 15, 2007. Ron Tallman has <br />requested an exception to the moratorium in order to proceed with his proposed subdivision, <br />Wild Oaks of Ramsey. <br />The following items are enclosed for your information: <br />a) Site location map for Wild Oaks of Ramsey <br />b) Letter from applicant, dated July 31, 2006 <br />c) Letter from applicant, dated August 4, 2006 <br />d) City Council meeting minutes dated May 9, 2006 <br />Observations: <br />Ron Tallman applied for sketch plan review of Wild Oaks Addition in May 2005, as one of the <br />first cluster subdivision proposals to be processed under the new cluster subdivision <br />requirements. The preliminary plat for Wild Oaks was denied by the City Council on May 9, <br />2006 because the plat showed a cul -de -sac in excess of 600 feet (a variance was applied for and <br />denied), and because of the lack of a second access to the plat. Mr. Tallman now wishes to <br />submit a revised plat to the City that eliminates these two concerns, but cannot because of the <br />moratorium. <br />The moratorium ordinance provides for exceptions when compliance may result in undue <br />hardship. The Council has the authority to grant an exception to the moratorium with conditions <br />desirable for the protection of the public interest. No exception is to be granted unless the City <br />Council finds the following: <br />1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property in question such <br />that strict compliance would deprive the petitioner of reasonable use of the property. <br />2. That the exception is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right. <br />3. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or <br />injurious to other property in the area. <br />4. That the exception will be harmonious with and in accordance with the objectives of the <br />City's existing Comprehensive Plan and will not adversely affect the planning process for <br />adoption of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. <br />—215— <br />