Minutes - Council - 11/09/2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

understands that the land needs to be developed but didn’t feel there was a meaningful buffer. He recognized that the notice issue was in the past but asked for reconsideration as they go forward. Brian Walker, 17289 Variolite Street, thanked Councilmember Howell for standing up for the residents. He questioned the rezoning process and expressed frustration with the project and the process stating there has been a lack of communication between the developer and the residents. He would like to see the City Council do a full investigation of the 2011 rezoning process regarding the notification process. He stated that the proposed development does not fit with others in rural Ramsey, this project will affect the residents who live there and bought in that location for the space. He stated the City has control over landowner rights, which he finds frustrating. He disagreed with the rezoning and commented on the traffic study, which he felt was inadequate. He supported the additional traffic study and requested that if the development does go through, something be installed, maybe a gated community, to act as a buffer. Doug Pries, 17511 Gibbon Street NW, stated he has lived there for 35 years. He understood that Ramsey was zoned into three different properties and asked, if this is allowed to go through, why it is allowed for the developers and not for him. He asked if he can subdivide his four-acre lot and expressed frustration over the traffic study and condition of Variolite Street. He questioned the infrastructure and the availability of fire hydrants to the number of new homes proposed and the proximity. He also expressed concern about wildlife in the rural setting and asked to be able to sell his lots just as the developer is being allowed to. Mickey Adams, 15313 Tungsten Street NW, stated he lived in the rural area where they had their own well and septic until they downsized. She stated besides the traffic, consideration should be made for the aquafers because the City is forcing people who have had their own wells and sewer to go on City water. She asked what that will cost for people living on 2.5 to 4 acres. She feels people who moved into rural areas did so for the space and beauty and they are being forced to be a part of the City. She also commented that the online audio was really poor. Councilmember Howell asked if there was a possibility, in the next 60 days, for the developer to work with residents to extend the buffer and shrink the middle while not losing any homes. City Administrator Ulrich replied it would be up to the developer if they are willing to go back to the concept drawings. He noted there has been a lot of work done on it and previously. The City told the developer they wanted a minimum of 80-foot lots, that is what the developer came back with, so it would be going back on the initial concept. With the comments, the City could go back to the developer but they may not be under any obligation to do that. Councilmember Heineman asked about individual’s selling parcels, if that is allowed and what the limitations are. He believes it is a landowner’s rights. Senior Planner McGuire Brigl replied that in general, property owners can sell their property to another individual without the City interfering. If the property owner wants to split the property for a new buildable property, the City would look at the new zoning for the area. In this district, it would currently be 80-foot-wide lots on City utilities. This is 7 separate parcels which have different ownership groups. The owner could sell one piece individually without talking to the City Council / November 9, 2021 Page 9 of 26