Laserfiche WebLink
Associate l~lanner Geisler noted the sketch plan reflects that the proposed development would <br />comply with City Code if it were eligible for development with municipal services. The sketch <br />plan process provides the Planning Commission the opportunity to relay to the developer <br />components of the proposed subdivision related to street network, lot layout, and overall <br />residential design that are acceptable and that may need further analysis during preliminary plat <br />submittal. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler asked the Planning Commission to provide the developer with <br />fbcdback and direction rclated to the proposed sketch plan. <br /> <br />Citizen Input <br /> <br />Mr. Merlin Itunt, 17860 Nowthen Boulevard, stated he has a little different view than most <br />people in the audience. He noted the Comprehensive Plan has been reviewed thoroughly. He <br />stated thirty years ago, they were putting one house on an acre and now they are arguing about <br />one lbr two and a half. He stated the City has changed with new development everywhere over <br />thc years. He stated when a development occurs, he suggested looking at it, define the problems <br />and make recommendations if it is a good development. He stated he did not like laws passed to <br />control his property. He would like for careful consideration of good developments. <br /> <br />Mr. Dick Church, 6900 168th Avenue NW, stated he appreciated what Mr. Hunt just said. He <br />stated thc memories are what the residents are talking about and they do not want it change. The <br />County highways run through all of the City of Ramsey. He stated they all have driven on the <br />county roads at one time or another. He stated all of the streets in the area are in terrible shape <br />and instead of adding more traffic to the roads, they need to fix them. The roads cannot handle <br />al1 of thc traffic. <br /> <br />Mr. Church stated the future of the concept mentioned is not out of line because what is indicated <br />is there will be change but they need to spend more time on safety issues and this should come <br />first. ~t¢ stated that as a registered voter, he is requesting the Planning Commission and City <br />Council not approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and not approve the sketch plan for <br />l~rook field in its present form. <br /> <br />rVl'r. Jim Overtoom, 16660 Jasper Street, stated the Comprehensive Plan change is what they are <br />lalking about and needs to be looked at very carefully before being approved. One of the <br />questions he has is the transition. A number of neighbors live on five or more acres and to go <br />fi'om that to less than one acre is a drastic change. He asked the Planning Commission <br />recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. <br /> <br />Vice Chairperson Johnson stated any recommendations on the road configuration would be <br />\¥C 1CO111 C. <br /> <br />Mr. Bob Sibilski, 7240 166th Avenue, stated his concern is the configuration of the streets. The <br />only solution he can see would be to make 166th the collector street, which would add substantial <br />traffic onto that road. Safety will be a major concern in that area. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/March 3, 2005 <br /> Page 12 of 22 <br /> <br /> <br />