My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 01/04/2007
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 01/04/2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 3:49:36 PM
Creation date
2/9/2007 12:33:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
01/04/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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
<br />Reserve and Rural Preserve). Staff would also note that the Rural Developing Area was under the <br />4 in 40 rules up until 2002. Ms. Geisler advised as noted above, the moratorium expires on <br />February 15, 2007. This does not provide sufficient time for the Planning Commission, City <br />Council, and Metropolitan Council to review the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. <br />Staff will be bringing forward to the City Council a proposal to extend the moratorium an <br />additional three months to provide enough review time, and to allow time for the zoning <br />ordinance to take effect. Ms. Geisler advised staff recommends adoption of the proposed <br />changes. She indicated a letter was received from a property owner regarding this issue and has <br />been distributed to the Commission. <br /> <br />Citizen Input <br /> <br />Mr. Robert Szewski, 17220 Tiger Street NW, stated he is happy and proud of the City and the <br />Planning Commission for revisiting this issue. He has had a lot of concern about the density and <br />the fact that the density in the rural part of Ramsey was totally inappropriate for what is going on <br />out there with the size of the lots and the lay of the land. If the Planning Commission could take <br />another look at the cluster development on Highway 116 just west of Highway 47, there is a <br />cluster development there that does not do the City much good; it is not a very well designed or <br />executed cluster. Even the word cluster has some connotation; if anyone were in the military <br />there is a whole new definition of cluster, which he thinks applies to this original development <br />sketch. He is proud they are taking another look at this and hopes the City continues with the <br />existing neighborhoods and continues with the feel of the rural portion of the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Dennis O'Keefe, l79th Lane resident, stated he is against the cluster housing and common <br />septic, but he is also against landowners being disallowed their current zoning. The zoning <br />should not be arbitrarily changed. <br /> <br />Mr. Rick Aberle, 17290 Germanium Street, requested an explanation of what is being discussed <br />tonight. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler explained the cluster ordinance was passed a couple years ago. That <br />ordinance allowed property owners to take the permitted density at the time and put those houses <br />on smaller lots in a portion of the property, leaving the remainder of the property open for a time. <br />When those cluster standards were put in place there was quite a bit of concern, which is why the <br />Council put the moratorium on, in order to take another look at the cluster ordinance. When the <br />moratorium was put in place there was concern about improving the cluster ordinance to make it <br />a better ordinance. As the Council was reviewing the ordinance they were concerned there was <br />not enough information to effectively amend the cluster ordinance. That is the reason for the <br />interim Comprehensive Plan amendment with one house per 10 acres until they get to the 2008 <br />Comprehensive Plan date. <br /> <br />Mr. Aberle asked how this affects a 2 ~ acre lot. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler replied there will be no effect to a 2 ~ acre home. This has an impact <br />on larger property owners who are looking to develop their property in the future. This would <br />reduce the number of units they could have on their property. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/January 4, 2007 <br />Page 17 of35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.