My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 08/01/2000
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
2000
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 08/01/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/20/2025 2:13:28 PM
Creation date
5/22/2003 9:30:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
08/01/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
City Attorney Goodrich replied that he could only develop without transition if the adjacent <br />parcel is not already platted. <br /> <br />Citizen Input <br /> <br />John Peterson, Oakwood Development, Inc.: stated that it is interesting to go from city to city <br />and see how different things are. He explained that in the City of Hugo he is currently <br />developing a property with 60 foot width lots to try and control urban sprawl. He stated that he <br />thinks it is a problem to distinguish between platted and unplatted property because if he owned <br />a forty-acre parcel he could plat it as one parcel and significantly reduce the value of the adjacent <br />property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson questioned how, as a City, do they handle situations when residents who <br />moved out to Ramsey because of the open space are now upset because the City is allowing <br />urban development. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson replied that the question is do the residents have a right to deny their neighbors the <br />opportunity to develop their property with a reasonable use. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson replied that for the people who own acreage it is not a light issue and <br />they are looking for City government to provide them some protection. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson stated that he recognized that this ordinance is an attempt to protect those residents, <br />but if the entire metropolitan area were developed that way the urban area would be pushed out <br />to St. Cloud. He stated that he was somewhat uncomfortable with a Planned Unit Development <br />when the rules are unclear and arbitrary. From a development point of view, the example lots are <br />very expensive to construct because of the cost of sewer and water and suggested that after the <br />one acre buffer a developer should then be able to construct the standard 10,800 square foot lot. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nixt stated that there needs to be a subjective analysis done on the property and <br />requested that research be done to determine how many pieces of property will be affected by the <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Randy Boushek stated that he currently owns a one acre lot and would like to see the City grow. <br />He questioned how he could find out what properties are eligible for this and why the first tier <br />was capped at one acre. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nixt replied that what is driving the ordinance is a recently adopted amendment to <br />the City Charter which put limitations on adjacent existing residential developments that <br />included a maximum one acre lot. <br /> <br />Commissioner Dempsey noted that the Charter only references lots within the MUSA. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/August 1, 2000 <br /> Page 7 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.