Agenda - Council - 11/25/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Tim Gladhill From: eric zaetsch [ezaetsch @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 5:36 PM To: Tim Gladhill Subject: Re: I have one very major problem with the process and result of this 11th hour Comp Plan thing - number wise Tim If you are doing that, dropping 4 in 40 is sound. Also, adding the Overtoom and neighboring properties is sound [per their comments at the public hearing]. Those people got screwed and deserve some fairness when they now ask for it. They should have had density transition, it was sought, but John Peterson had the council votes to maximize his density against their boundary and did so. Those folks were NOT reasonably accomodated, then, with high density abutting their homes. Meeting their request is the least you can do now. Cold comfort, but better than no comfort at all, their present state. It ups the numbers more, accomodating those people in the general neighborhood where Natalie lives on her well - &- septic arrangement, just as the Catholic church property also does up the grand - total number [if it is not in the 15,736 count, then it and the Overtoom neighborhood should be added, and the numbers in the draft increased — please run all that by the council before they vote]. Obviously I don't like it, and differing maps at that long session had different things, but it is how it is. Please think about less housing at the Highway 10 region where jobs might instead emerge. Please at the Nov. 25 meeting urge the council to deliberate that as possible. My mapping group at that session were unaware more chits than needed for meeting quota were given, that was undisclosed. Thanks for the reply comment. When you said, "Kurt summarized ..." I did not get any email from Kurt, or missed it in the queue, so I presume you are writing about a discussion, or about an internal email. If Kurt intended to email something to me, I will double check my inbox. With a lot coming in, things can be missed. I will see you and others at the Nov. 25 meeting. I appreciate your sending a reply. Eric On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Tim Gladhill <tgladhill @ci.ramsey.mn.us> wrote: > Good Afternoon Eric, > Thank you for your comments regarding the draft Comprehensive Plan update. I think Kurt summarized the methodology for arriving at the number of housing units the draft plan can accommodate well. > > The final figure of 15,736 came from the community design process. Based on how participants placed the various land uses on the map, the consultant was able to calculate a number of housing units the proposed land use plan could accommodate. Yes, we were to show that we would be able to accommodate 13,650 residential units, as discussed with the Metropolitan Council. However, there was also discussion about removing areas from the 4 in 40 designation. There were areas that were requesting to be shown as Low Density Residential, regardless of what the final number was. I think there was a larger discussion 1 -335-