Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. 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 />Comprehensive Plan mean to the City. He did not feel a sixty-day review for an amendment to <br />the Comprehensive Plan is adequate. <br /> <br />Mr. Overtoom stated a Comprehensive Plan change for these developments will change the <br />livability of Ramsey. He stated they are requesting the Planning Commission to deny the <br />Ct)mprehensive Plan Amendment and the Sketch Plan be denied in its present state. <br /> <br />Mr. Jei2' 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 />again 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. He 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 />overcrowded 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 />~nore homes on the north side of town, they are only adding to the problems, not solving them. <br /> <br />Mr. Chuck Hedstrom, 7100 166th 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 he moved into Ramsey ten years ago... He stated 'there is no transition 'in the lot sizes, <br />inadequate 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 up to City sewer and water until his system is inadequate. <br /> <br />Mr. Hedstrom stated he appreciated Mr. Peterson meeting with the neighborhoods: The best <br />argument he has fbr Mr. Peterson's development is he is holding twenty acres of what is being <br />proposed ~br a friend. He asked the Commission to refuse the request of Mr. Peterson to amend <br />the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Bob Hanborg, 15755 Traprock Street NW, stated he was encouraged by the number of <br />people at the meeting speaking up. He stated what became evident to him is it seems like the cart <br />is g~ctting put before 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 />