1998 Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

.. 612-3386838 HOISINGTON KOE4IIr Post-it" Fax Note To 512 Pel1 RPR 22 '98 09:21 Memorandum Phone It 7671 Date .. Co. From To: Sylvia Frolik From: Brad Date: April 22, 1998 Fax # Fax # Re: Planning Cases Several points to make in light of the planning cases (Gobernatz and Danner). Gobematz and Danner are both making similar requests and can be considered under the same premise. In either case, we see no "unnecessary or unique hardship" that would support the granting of a variance for lot size (density is nOl the i5sue as both sites would still be within the spirit of the 4 units in 40 acre density limit.) 1. The hardship is with the imposition of 10 acre minimum lot sizes with the d- rezoning of 1990. This hardship was deemed necessary to maintain a o.<.-J ~ ~ consistency with the Metropolitan Council's regional growrh policy; ~~ ~~ - <si~ . ..... ~ 2. The hardship is not unique to either site. It is felt within the entire northern ~ ~ portion of Ramsey. A more appropriate solution to this issue would be an t~ amendment to the zoning ordinance, which may be a result of the CJ v (;;' Comprehensive Plan. 3. Both applicants could split off 10 acre Jots without any unusual loss. 4. The sole purpose for Mr. Danner's request is financial gain. This alone is not enough to grant a variance. 5. Mr. Gobematz's purpose for a variance is so that he can keep as much land as possible for farming. An altemative to only splitting off two 2.5 acre lots could be for Mr. Gobematz to obtain an easement across the back portion of two 10 acre lots. If you and Attorney Goodrich would concur with these points, it would suggest a staff recommendation for denial, not because we feel this type of development should occur in this area or for the applicant's reasons, but because legally there is no supporting reason for a variance. If the applicants proceed. the Council would have the following options. Deny both requests a.~ recommended by staff and wait for the Comprehensive Plan to be completed (and possibly a rezoning to address this issue), approve both requests (not following staff recommendation) or approve one or the other realizing that the applicant that did not get approved could appeal the decision in court. Ilo;ye/J~ ~ r ~ 4.~ J/2JJJ ~J_ ~/ ( ~ ~ ~ J-o--r.- 0-9 ~ ......