Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Riley stated they are allowing less density and fewer houses per acre with this <br />change. <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator/Community Dev. Director Hagen confirmed this. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff stated this is a benefit of the City to keep the density low. To comply <br />with the current zoning, it would have to be changed to medium density, which revolves back to <br />the Met Council who provides the City sewer. He stated they can leave the Met Council but it <br />would be leaving a $200 million dollar investment in a sewer plant, which no one wants to do. <br />There are certain things that have to be done to comply with a broader picture, which is where the <br />Comp Plan amendment comes in. He agreed with Mr. Walker’s point of planning ahead of time <br />but pointed out that over time, wetlands change so wetland delineations will continue to move and <br />it depends on where the roads are placed as they are part of the density measurement and can offset <br />the usable space for house platting. He addressed the question that residents aren’t listened to and <br />stated there are residents who are afraid of coming to talk because they are afraid of being yelled <br />at by residents on the other side of the issue in supporting this decision. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked about the difference between the two statements because if this <br />change isn’t passed from the Planning Commission, they would be reverting to the passed <br />resolution that there are going to be six points. She asked what is the difference between an in-fill <br />type development and the large lot developments that are included in number six. <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator/Community Dev. Director Hagen replied the Planning Commission <br />felt they were so similar, they should be combined. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked if they are the same or are they similar, noting there isn’t much <br />difference but there may be a difference. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff replied the point of having them combined into one is that it makes it <br />harder to meet the two requirements, that there has to be more than one requirement met in order <br />for this land to be zoned as such. The purpose of the Planning Commission was to make it harder <br />for this district to be used. Because they are similar but not the same, they merged the two <br />statements into one because if they had met requirement five, they would have also have met six <br />and vice versa. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked if it is being made more difficult to use a less density zoned area <br />but in the rural area, less density is wanted. She stated this is allowing for a lower density. If this <br />is changed, because they are different, this wouldn’t be used as often than what might potentially <br />be used with the outcome being a lower density. <br /> <br />Deputy City Administrator/Community Dev. Director Hagen replied the current area that the new <br />district is going to re-guide is the Trott Brook Crossing development and the Hunt property to the <br />north. There is only one parcel left that could utilize this new district. He understood that there <br />are no development plans at this time. At this point, this district isn’t calling out a big expanse of <br />Ramsey that would come into play but is specific to these two developments. Regarding the lower <br />density in a rural area, he stated, if that is the goal then the two statements should be separated and <br />City Council / February 22, 2022 <br />Page 13 of 34 <br /> <br />