Laserfiche WebLink
will be required if the project moves forward. <br />• Utilities:This area is guided for City utilities in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and is currently zoned for <br />utilities. Staff would like to note for the record that just because utilities are in the area, individual property <br />owners on well and septic will not be forced to connect to City utilities per the City's charter. <br />• Lot Sizes: The Applicant is proposing 55, 65, and 75 foot wide lots. The City recently completed a Housing <br />Study with Maxfield Consulting that indicated there is a demand for this type of product. Staff has heard <br />from the development community that the market is demanding more of this product with smaller lots due to <br />development costs and lifestyle choices. The market for 80 foot wide lots has decreased significantly in the <br />past 5 years, as evidenced by Ramsey's own permit data. are Staff would like to note that just because there is <br />a demand for this type of product, and it is likely it will sell, that does not mean the City is required to allow <br />them in every location. <br />• Shoreland Overlay District: A portion of the Subject Property is within the Shoreland Overlay District due to <br />proximity to Trott Brook. The Shoreland Overlay District boundary extends 300 feet from the Ordinary High <br />Watermark (OHW) of Trott Brook. Within this area, lot width at both the OHW and the building line must be <br />at least seventy-five (75) feet. There is no minimum lot size (area) requirements for streams in the Shoreland <br />Overlay District. It does appear that the sketch plan conforms to the lot width standard of the Overlay <br />District. <br />Changes to Typical Process <br />Due to the Stay at Home Order, Planning Commission meetings have been moved online, which changes our <br />typical engagement process. The City has implemented the following changes to ensure the public is provided <br />opportunity to comment on this case, including: <br />• Postponed cases <br />• Hosted preparatory webinars <br />• Placed videos online <br />• Extended public comment periods <br />• Did more focused outreach <br />• Suggested alternative means to provide comment <br />60 Day Rule <br />Staff previously gave an update on the 60-Day Rule as it relates to current cases, that agenda item is available on <br />the April 2, 2020 Planning Commission agenda found at www.cityoframsey.com/agendas. State Statute requires <br />that the City of Ramsey respond to an Application within 60 days of submittal. The City of Ramsey is allowed one <br />60 day extension in order to respond, allowing a total of 120 days. After 120 days, the Applicant must agree to <br />further extensions. <br />• Trott Brook North: Sketch Plan and Rezoning Submitted March 5, 2020 (60 days - May 4, 2020, 120 days - <br />July 3, 2020) <br />The City has invoked 60 day extensions for the project due to the current State of Emergency related to Covid-19 <br />and to provide the City additional time to further evaluate the proposal for compliance with applicable regulations <br />and provide reasonable public input. Ordinances take two (2) City Council meetings if approved, so the Planning <br />Commission needs to make a recommendation on this project tonight, unless the Developer agrees to an additional <br />extension in writing. <br />Public Comment <br />Written Comments Received:All written public comments have been attached to this case and shall be considered <br />part of the formal public record. Staff has also attempted to summarize comments received in an attached document <br />to note the most significant areas of concern from residents. <br />Discussions with Residents:For the last two months or so, Staff has been speaking with residents about this project <br />one-on-one and attempting to clarify the proposal, summarize the public hearing process, and provide opportunities <br />for comment. While many telephones calls were followed up with formal letters or emails, some were not. Staff <br />estimates that approximately ten (10) calls took place with residents who were opposed to the project. Reasons <br />varied but the majority of reasons were: lack of rural character with project, project is too dense, traffic concerns, <br />and environmental concerns. Calls came from residents throughout the City, but most were from those along <br />