My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 04/11/1995
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
1995
>
Minutes - Council - 04/11/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2025 3:54:10 PM
Creation date
7/10/2003 9:35:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
04/11/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
just adopt an ordinance saying we are putting a moratorium on the entire City; we would be <br />exposing ourselves to damages on property rights for those persons who have purchased <br />property or have had property rezone& You have the authority to declare a moratorium if it <br />is done properly and it is for legitimate study purposes. <br /> <br />Steve Croteau, 5939 - 151st Lane N.W., Ramsey, stated that his main concern is for his <br />personal property value to be upheld. He purchased property with the feeling that he <br />would not be imposed upon with such a high density development. He expressed concern <br />about the additional traffic generated from 22 more families. Mr. Croteau felt this is not <br />fair and he is upset because this area was going to be two 10-acre parcels of land and he is <br />opposed to the development of 22 homes in that area. He did not think this project would <br />have been discussed right now if there had not been a bond referendum passed for the <br />Ramsey Elementary School. The school has to have City sewer and now within 500 yards <br />of that land there is a developer wanting to develop what is inconsistent with that area. <br />"We don't have to be another Coon Rapids. There's a place for cities like this". Mr. <br />Croteau continued that the group (Ramsey Residents for Responsible Government) would <br />like to solicit responses from citizens with respect to their feelings on residential <br />development. He asked for more information on what's spurting the advancement of this <br />MUSA line. <br /> <br />City Administrator Schroeder stated that we are currently working on a response to that <br />question to lay out options of growth versus non-growth. We are looking at available land <br />and what would be the result of certain types of development. <br /> <br />Mr. Croteau suggested there are a lot of areas that lend itself nicely to higher densities, etc. <br /> <br />Councilmember Peterson stated we have just gone through an intensive planning process, <br />with a considerable amount of documents, etc. and the City is being pressed to deal with <br />the issues of low income and multi-family housing plus transportation. <br /> <br />Mr. Croteau asked for advice with respect to bringing about a referendum relating to this <br />issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that this process is outlined in Chapter 5 of the Ramsey City Charter. <br />It requires a sponsoring committee of five registered voters of the City to get the signatures <br />of 10 percent of the last number of registered voters at the last election. The petition must <br />then be presented to Council and the signatures will have to be verified. What's been <br />initiated can be placed on an election. A special election could be held He advised that it <br />would be wise to have the ordinance reviewed by an attorney to deem it constitutional. <br /> <br />Mr. Croteau thanked Council for hearing his concerns. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated that when the developer of Fox Knoll came in, he <br />(Zimmerman) posed the question of whether or not Council could stop his development <br />and he was told by City Attorney Goodrich that if the developer met all the criteria, the <br />development couldn't be stopped. He inquired what happened. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder stated that Staff was recommending that Council not consider the <br />development as a rural subdivision because it's in the MUSA and that if Staff and the <br />developer could not work it out, it would come back for attorney review. The developer <br />rescinded and came back with an urban plat. <br /> <br />City Council/April 11, 1995 <br /> Page 8 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.