Laserfiche WebLink
stated il' audience members have additional concerns, other than the ones mentioned, he would <br />ttsk. them to limit input to several minutes per person and not be repetitive. <br /> <br />Mayor (}amec recognized the attendance of past Councilmember and Planning Commissioner A1 <br />So~tcbcrg. [[e thanked Mr. Sorteberg for his dedication and past service to Ramsey. <br /> <br />Councihncmber Elvig stated his father-in-law used to own this property. He stated there is a fair <br />amount o[' politics that may want to spin him back into this controversy so he will abstain on this <br />issue but would appreciate being able to weigh in on it since he has knowledge of the property, <br />habitat, and flow of water. <br /> <br />Bob Hamborg, 15755 Traprock Street'NW, advised that he had been contacted by Roy and <br />Carolyn Shumway who live north of the gun club to read into the record their letter. The letter <br /> ~ 'S <br />detailed Shulnway ' service to Ramsey and expressed their conceTM about the proposed <br />development. The letter encouraged the Council to follow the laws 'o'f the City and not approve <br />thc amendment to the Comprehensive Plan from Rural Reserve-to LoTM Density Residential. The <br />letter ret'erred to a Star Tribune article that related to the Town Center project having 2,000 <br />housing units that would be convenient by foot, bicycle, and public transit, and to avoid sprawl <br />by not forcing development outside of the MUSA. <br /> <br />Mr. [lamborg read a lengthy prepared statement, noting this project differs from others the City <br />has faced and the Planning Commission's vote was divided to disapprove. He suggested the <br />sc(~pe ot' change is great, City-wide, as to the sewer and water changes being petitioned for. He <br />stated the Traprock Commons residents, who built their homes, have signed covenants against <br />subdivision of their 5 acre lots so the proposed development is out of character and would reduce <br />thc wtluc o1' their properties. It would also lessen their enjoyment. He stated Traprock Commons <br />residents should suffer no implied condemnation or degradation to the value of their homesteads, <br />absent a condemnation action in court, because a neighboring private property owner wants to <br />maximize profitability. <br /> <br />Mr. t lamborg pointed out the consideration is not a scheme for maximized profit as the land is <br />zoned, but is a request to set aside the Comprehensive Plan for a large piece of property that will <br />lessen neighborhood protections and covenanted properties with potential unneeded forced <br />hookup. Ile urged the Council to not be swayed by debatable claims of where the best interest of <br />Iht: City stands and asserted that partial value of each Traprock Commons properties will <br />indirectly stand condemned by Plan amendment, not by judicial filing. <br /> <br />Mr. [lamborg stated it is absolutely wrong if the Council approves the Comprehensive Plan <br />amendment and Sweet Bay Ridge development as it exists today. He stated citizens all over the <br />United States are taking legal stands against developer-influenced bodies of government intent <br />on forcing their will over the will of the residential property citizens. He noted America was <br />tbundcd on principles of individual rights and asked what those rights mean if individuals are not <br />ii'ce to continue to enjoy their homesteads because a small group of profiteers want to accelerate <br />Ibc City's growth at a rate that surpasses the City's capacity for schools, traffic, and funding. Mr. <br /> <br />City Council / March 22, 2005 <br /> Page 10 of 38 <br /> <br /> <br />