Minutes - Council - 03/10/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

it would require an additional 1,000 feet along both intersecting routes. This configuration would impact two of the three ball fields and approximately one-third of the customer parking area. The verbal message from the Anoka County Engineer is that MnDOT is not enthusiastic about upgrading Highway #10 or owning another bridge. If the bridge project happens, it is at least 20 years in the future, however, preserved corridors do get the projects. The City then has to consider whether or not the restaurant, bar and ball fields is an acceptable use of the property for the next 20 years. Ms. Frolik continued that the developers of the proposed sports bar have indicated, in writing, that if and when the bridge crossing becomes a reality, they are willing to provide any unused portion of their site for the additional right-of-way in lieu of park dedication and storm water management fees today; they would expect to be compensated the fair market value for any additional portion of their parcel necessary to complete the bridge project. Ms. Frolik pointed out that the report from Hoisington basically states that development of the parcel as a sports bar will not have an impact on the Comprehensive Plan process or the end product. However, the Comprehensive Plan, when completed and implemented, could result in actions that could have an impact on the development of the parcel. According to Hoisington, the current moratorium on development was primarily for the purpose of determining the impact of new residential development on existing residential developments. Mr. Martin's property will have little impact on existing residential development because of its surrounding land uses. Ms. Frolik read the following criteria and findings: Criteria 1: That there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of the provisions of this Moratorium Ordinance would deprive the petitioner of the reasonable use of petitioner's land. Finding: Mr. Martin's circumstance is special because the property is platted and requires no 'subdividing'; the platting process is necessary to change the designation of the property to one that is eligible for a building permit. Platted commercial lots, approximately 1,000 feet west of the subject property, are also outside the MUSA, but are not subject to the moratorium and eligible for development if the proposed use does not require a rezoning. Criteria 2: That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property fight of the petitioner. Finding: Mr. Martin has cooperated with the City for years for an orderly development plan for his property and the river crossing. He should be afforded property rights equal to that of other owners of platted commercial property outside the MUSA that are not subject to the moratorium. Criteria 3: That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated. Finding: It is staff's opinion that the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area. Criteria 4: That the proposed exception will be harmonious with and in accordance with the specific objectives of the City's existing Comprehensive Plan and will not adversely affect the planning process for adoption of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan above described. Finding: The proposed use of the property is in compliance with the City's current Comprehensive Plan and the City's planning consultant, Hoisington Koegler, has indicated that the development of the property at this time will not impact the outcome of the Comprehensive Plan update. Criteria 5: That the proposed use/subdivision will be consistent with the intent and purposes of this (Moratorium) Ordinance. Finding: That the proposed use (commercial) and exception is consistent with the intent of the moratorium ordinance, which was to review the impact of new residential development on existing residential development. City Council/March 10, 1998 Page 16 of 24