Laserfiche WebLink
Matt and Dan, <br />For the record, here were my comments at the online meeting tonight. The first listed was a <br />written comment, which was not read aloud. <br />"I struggle with the size of the current RI lot widths, so I clearly oppose any rezoning to reduce <br />this width. I believe that approving these rezoning requests opens the door for many more <br />attempts to rezone lot sizes for reasons that are purely motivated by financial gain by the <br />developer which I assume is why they are pursuing a rezoning and not a variance. PLEASE <br />provide actionable items the city staff and council has moved upon to PRESERVE the rural feel, <br />per the comp plan. I see it in word and in writing, but not in action." <br />My spoken question was about whether or not this zoning amendment had any predetermined <br />requirements to be met in order for the request to move forward. As you know, the variance <br />process has a three factor test for practical difficulties, and if the request does not meet ALL <br />three, the request is denied. Tim Gladhill did not readily know if the zoning amendment process <br />had any minimum requirements to be considered, but thought it was a good question and needed <br />to be looked into. <br />My goal when moving to Ramsey was to enjoy the second half of my life, happily from the <br />sidelines. However, the explosion of high density residential and smaller (than I support) RI lot <br />sizes has me much more fired up than I wish to be. I would be happy to discuss these current, <br />and I would assume, future high(er) density projects with you. <br />Thank you, <br />Richard Sonterre <br />7911 152nd Ln NW <br />