My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
03/08/22
Ramsey
>
Public
>
City Update
>
2022
>
03/08/22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2025 11:54:19 AM
Creation date
3/11/2022 2:26:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
City Clerk Document Type
City Update
Document Date
12/31/2022
Document Title
03/08/22
Retention Date
12/31/2026
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
547
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
revert back to the January 11, 2022 version. He stated arguably the developer could quite simply <br />check both criteria. He stated with State statues and Met Council requirements, when there is a <br />Comp Plan under their jurisdiction and the overall City density needs to remain at three units or <br />greater, he cautioned using this tool in too big of an area in Ramsey. If they fall below three units <br />per acre, there is concern the Met Council could deny future sewer connections such as a <br />commercial project. <br />Councilmember Woestehoff stated that is one of the big concerns in using this as a tool elsewhere, <br />because of the overall density with this project and others that are currently right at the level of <br />three units per acre would need higher density by The COR to develop to offset the three units per <br />acre to keep land farther away as more rural as time goes on. <br />Councilmember Musgrove replied they have development in The COR that would help with those <br />numbers. She stated this is just for these two areas but asked if they could make another Comp <br />Plan amendment and could it qualify for this zoning area. <br />Deputy City Administrator/Community Dev. Director Hagen confirmed this and explained it could <br />be said that there is this district in existence. Someone could always ask to change the rules and it <br />would be reviewed to see if that made sense. Arguably, they are putting in place a district that has <br />been utilized and could be a starting place at a later date. <br />Councilmember Musgrove stated she wasn't supportive of the change because she liked the <br />original version that allows for opportunities for lower density in more rural areas and would help <br />comply with what the two developments were doing. <br />Councilmember Woestehoff emphasized this only effects MUSA properties because the Met <br />Council only looks at MUSA districts. <br />Deputy City Administrator/Community Dev. Director Hagen replied he is correct that Met Council <br />looks at the sewer. <br />Councilmember Musgrove asked if only the density in those areas is counted, not the whole City. <br />Councilmember Woestehoff replied that is his understanding. <br />Motion by Councilmember Woestehoff, seconded by Councilmember Riley, to adopt Resolution <br />#22-052 Supporting the Planning Commission's Changes to a Comprehensive Plan Amendment <br />Adopted by Resolution #22-009. <br />Further discussion: <br />Councilmember Heineman responded to Mr. Walker's comments that if this passes, this is proof <br />that this City Council is corrupt, noting that is an inflammatory statement. The Council is voting <br />to align the City with the Met Council to ensure fewer houses in the area so he felt that was a <br />disingenuous statement. He also expressed disappointment in Mr. Walker's comments about <br />residents feeling targeted for speaking against the City Council. Mr. Walker replied his statements <br />weren't inflammatory if they are true and he knows of residents who were targeted after they came <br />City Council / February 22, 2022 <br />Page 14 of 34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.