Minutes - Council - 02/12/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Bruce Iverson, 14301 Neon Street NW, Ramsey, stated that two issues have been brought forward by the residents regarding the City's Comprehensive Plan. He inquired as to what the due process is for updating and revising the Comprehensive Plan and how are residents supposed to know when land that has been proposed for parkland is being changed. Mayor Gamec replied that a public hearing is held prior to making any changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Goodrich noted that state law requires a public hearing. Mr. Iverson stated that he has been impressed by the Comprehensive Plan that has been adopted, which was why he was there to make sure that what is being developed in the City of Ramsey complies with the Comprehensive Plan. The question he had was has the due process been completed, and what assurance does he have that future proposed parks wouldn't be eliminated. City Attorney Goodrich explained that the statutory procedure for amending and adopting the Comprehensive Plan were complied with. If there is a future amendment, that procedure again would be followed. Mayor Gamec noted that residents should read the Ramsey Resident to stay informed. Councihnember Hendriksen inquired if they were to authorize preliminary plat for lots that exist in land designated as park in the Comprehensive Plan, wouldn't they be in violation? City Attorney Goodrich replied that, if in fact that is what they are doing, then the City would be in violation, but he would have to review that further before making a determination. He noted that the City's Principal Planner has indicated that there is no issue regarding to the park land and that no planned unit development is required. If the Council wanted a legal opinion, the Council would have to direct him to do so. Councihnember Hendriksen noted that under the Comprehensive Plan that existed prior to 2001, the developer would have been permitted the 88 single family homes, but would have had 56 townholnes. The total allowable density would have been 197 units rather than 261 as allowed under the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Anderson stated that the assumption was that under a planned unit development there would have been 77 single family homes, 152 townhome units, and 82 apartment units. When that was proposed, the Council felt those 152 townhomes was too many so they recommended some changes. Now the developer is proposing 88 single family homes, 91 townhomes, and 82 units for the apartment complex, which is an improvement. Principal Planner Trudgeon noted that in the development that was previously presented to the Council, the developer was proposing some medium density within the low-density area, which is why it was done under the planned unit development process. City Council/February 12, 2002 Page 9 of 33