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

Home

Marguerite Henke, 14311 Armstrong Boulevard NW, Ramsey, did not feel that the moratorium would deprive Mr. Martin of the reasonable use of his land because there are no special circumstances on this land. She suggested that if this exception is made, it will be difficult to deny others. She pointed out that she is speaking for her neighborhood and added that Alpaca Estates was not notified of what was proposed. She felt there should be a public hearing for this issue and that the City should review other cities and what criteria their buildings follow. She stated that Ramsey has no established ordinance on restaurants like what Elk River and Andover have established. She suggested the ball field lighting would be a nuisance. Ms. Henke felt that Ramsey is inviting problems, like what Andover has with POV's, by prematurely allowing an exception to the moratorium. She reiterated that a public hearing should be held because this proposal is not for a regular-type bar. She noted that the proposal does not indicate whether or not the patio will be a fenced-in area. She felt that market values, policing, traffic and noise had not been taken into consideration. She requested that Council table action on this issue. Mayor Gamec informed Ms. Henke that the only thing Council is addressing is the moratorium, and there are a lot of conditions that have to be met by the applicants if the moratorium is lifted. Upon inquiry, Ms. Frolik pointed out that the law states you have to notify people within 350 feet of the proposed facility, however, in this case, she notified people up to 4,000 feet away. City Attorney Goodrich stated that two public hearings will be held; one is for the liquor license and the second will be for the conditional use permit relating to outside activities. The bar is a permitted use and Council does not have a right to deny that part of this proposal. Larry Henke, 14311 Armstrong Boulevard NW, Ramsey, felt that this business would have an adverse effect on the adjacent neighborhood as it is not an 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. business. He felt the noise would be a big problem and that the moratorium should be upheld. Beverly Brekke, 14275 Alpaca Street NW, Ramsey, agreed with the remarks made by Mr. and Mrs. Henke. She felt this establishment will not be an asset to the neighborhood. She suggested fairness should apply to those who were in the area prior to the proposed facility. She felt this will affect the neighborhood as it will be open day and night, seven days a week. She suggested it is not reasonable to life the moratorium at this point. Terry Hendriksen, 15631 Ramsey Boulevard NW, Ramsey, stated that when he was a Planning Commissioner, they voted 7 to 0 against this bridge location. He wanted a bridge crossing that would be beneficial to the City of Ramsey. The City has said they did not want to see the bridge go north of C.R. #116. He stated that he did not feel it is a reasonable area to build a cloverleaf. Most of the property shown would be consumed with an interchange with Highway #10. If there is no interchange, all traffic would go up to C.R. #116. He continued that if there is any chance we are going to achieve the stated desire of the City of stopping the bridge at C.R. #116 and Highway #10 and not bringing it through the City like the County wants to do, we would have to deny this request and acquire property for an interchange. He stated that the City of Dayton is opposed to this alignment because it would go through the Elm Creek Park Preserve. They do not want the park cut up like that. He wondered why Ramsey wasn't upset about cutting up the Mississippi West Park. Mr. Hendriksen stated he supported a bridge crossing when he served on City Council/March 10, 1998 Page 17 of 24