Minutes - Council - 01/11/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Councilmember Woestehoff commented that he appreciated the input of everyone who spoke on this case, Mr. Walker included, over the last two years. He has seen many times as a former member of the Planning Commission that as a City, they could get better at providing notifications. He stated that in looking at the Winona case, that was 1977 when the internet wasn’t available. Now, the zoning map is readily available online. Things have changed and Ramsey has an opportunity to embrace some of those aspects to be better about notification whether it is in book form, pamphlet form, or in City Hall and making things available to residents is extremely important. He understands that there is a desire to protect what is in one’s backyard. As a resident who lives on an 80-foot lot, he is a minority perspective in his ward, most of which are large acre lots. He noted that more developers and developments keep coming and there is no reason why the Makowsky’s or anyone should be denied to sell their land and have the ability to be compensated for the investment that they have had, noting balance is needed. Councilmember Woestehoff continued that he was on the Planning Commission early on when a compromise was asked for with the larger lots on the outside and smaller lots on the inside. There was similar opposition to smaller lots because it was deemed as high density and even though it was not procedurally high density, there was that perspective. He felt there have been a lot of communication problems, as with any city. He hoped that the City can get better at that and residents continue to call or email the Council instead of communicating on social media, which doesn’t do anything. Councilmember Heineman commented that for him, it comes down to individual rights. He stated that the City has a form of representative government where the elected officials need to protect individual rights, especially those of landowners. This isn’t a society where if the majority of neighbors decide they want to restrict the rights of another neighbor that they get to win. Councilmember Heineman commented he appreciated the perspective on the executive order by Mr. Walker but for him, what he was fighting for when that vote took place, was individual rights. What is in front of the Council is rezoning and moving forward. As much as he would like to restrict the development of higher density developments in rural areas, for him it comes back to individual rights. Councilmember Specht expressed that he has concerns including how notifications were done. In talking with residents, the balance of rural and the business side of Ramsey, he doesn’t think this is a good fit for this area in Ramsey and he won’t be supporting it. He joins the concerns brought up by residents concerning notifications. He added, that he would like to apologize to Mr. Walker on behalf of some on the Council. Councilmember Specht recalled that questionable things were said on Zoom against Mr. Walker and he was unsure of how to step in at the time. He would like everyone to feel safe to be able to share their opinion. Councilmember Musgrove commented that part of the information in this case says that the Council was in favor of 80-foot lots. She clarified that the Council is in favor of an 80-foot lot minimum. The word minimum doesn’t get included in the information because the zoning is R1 residential, 80-foot-wide lots are the minimum, so there could be half-acre or acre lots, it is a matter of what the developer wants to bring forward. She noted the Council wasn’t saying 80-foot lots are required. She continued by referencing Councilmember Woestehoff’s comments about the City Council / January 11, 2022 Page 10 of 25