Laserfiche WebLink
Mt'. Jim Overtoom, 16660 Jasper Street, stated they are at the meeting to talk about the <br />Comprehensive Plan. He stated the City spent many years and much discussion to come up with <br />a Comprehensive Plan. He stated sixty days ago, they received a petition from a developer and <br />resident to change that plan. He stated they need to study what the changes to the <br />Co~nprchensive Plan mean to the City. He did not feel a sixty-day review for an amendment to <br />thc Comprehensive Plan is adequate. <br /> <br />Mr. Ovcrtoom stated a Comprehensive Plan change for these developments will change the <br />liwtbility of Ramsey. He stated they are requesting the Planning Commission to deny the <br />Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Sketch Plan be denied in its present state. <br /> <br />Mr. Jcl'l' Uecker, 17121 Variolite Street, stated they have spent a long time discussing the <br />Comprehensive Plan change and now they are going to spend more time discussing amending it <br />agait~ when they should be planning for the next ten years. He stated they are losing all of the <br />rural character by the use of the density. He proposed the Commission deny this. <br /> <br />Vice Chairperson Johnson stated they are only a recommending body to the City Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Gary Smith, 16821 Garnet Street, stated the ten-year Comprehensive Plan was submitted <br />three years later than when it was supposed to be. He stated instead of amending this plan, they <br />should be concentrating on the next ten year plan. He did not think this development made <br />sense. Itc explained the City should be focusing on fixing the already congested roads instead of <br />adding more homes. He stated the Ramsey School, when opened, was overcrowded and is still <br />(~vercrowdcd and nothing can be done about this without more residents. He thought they should <br />leave the amendment as it is and deal with the problems on the roadways. He stated by adding <br />more homcs on the north side of town, they are only adding to the problems, not solving them. <br /> <br />Mr. Chuck Hedstro~n, 7 100 166t~ Avenue NW, stated he felt Traprock is the first step in moving <br />towards the development in his neighborhood. He described the history of his neighborhood <br />since hc moved into Ramsey ten years ago. He stated there is no transition in the lot sizes, <br />inadcquate roadways to handle the five hundred or more automobiles, the ecological impact on <br />the land and area will be great. If the amendment is approved, City sewer and water will pass by <br />his home. City Code states he would have to hook up within two years, the City Charter says he <br />will not have to hook up. He stated he would like some assurance that he would not have to <br />hook ttp to City sewer and water until his system is inadequate. <br /> <br />Mr. l ledstrom stated he appreciated Mr. Peterson meeting with the neighborhoods. The best <br />argument he has for Mr. Peterson's development is he is holding twenty acres of what is being <br />pr(~posed Ibr a fi'iend. Fie asked the Commission to refuse the request of Mr. Peterson to amend <br />thc Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Bob ttanborg, 15755 Traprock Street NW, stated he was encouraged by the number of <br />pe()ple at the meeting speaking up. He stated what became evident to him is it seems like the cart <br />is getting put betbre the horse when this development may not even take place because the clean <br />up may cost more than expected. He wondered what would happen then, would the amendment <br /> <br />Planning Commission/March 3, 2005 <br /> Page 6 of 22 <br /> <br /> <br />