Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Chairperson Nixt explained this will not affect someone who owns a 2 ~ acre lot. It may impact <br />someone that owns an undeveloped tract of land greater than 2 ~ acres. Someone that owns a 10 <br />acre tract of land could currently subdivide it into four parcels; if this goes forward they could <br />only develop it as one parcel. <br /> <br />Mr. Aberle asked how this would impact him if his land adjoins a possible future development <br />that may want to purchase his land as part of that development. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt replied the developer who would be interested in acquiring the property would <br />have less interest in acquiring the 2 ~ acre tract because three more similar parcels would be <br />needed to make one buildable lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Aberle asked ifthis is outside any proposed MUSA development. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt responded in the affirmative. <br /> <br />Mr. John Enstrom, 8702 181st Avenue NW, questioned if this change will basically put 75% of <br />Ramsey under the 4 in 40 ordinance. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler replied the Rural Developing Area being discussed is north of the <br />MUSA line. There are a couple other rural districts north of the MUSA line. The Central Rural <br />Reserve Area and the Rural Preserve Area are not being discussed at this time. Basically tonight <br />they are talking about everything north of the MUSA outside of these two areas. <br /> <br />Mr. Enstrom clarified with Associate Planner Geisler that if this is approved the whole north half <br />of Ramsey will be 4 in 40. He questioned what the advantage would be of going to 4 in 40. This <br />will basically eliminate all development. A lot of property owners in the City have 5 to 10 acre <br />lots, possibly 12 to 15 acre lots. They are now at retiring age and want their kids to be able to <br />subdivide; all those families dreams are thrown out. A lot of families will lose on this situation <br />and will be forced out of town. Mr. Enstrom stated he owns 120 acres and is probably more <br />affected by this than anyone, but there are a lot of people that will get burned with this. He has <br />no intention of developing his land, but he feels it is discrimination for someone to take and <br />eliminate that chance and allow him only a 10 acre lot, while the majority of his neighbors are <br />plotted out on 1 to 2 ~ acre lots. Mr. Enstrom stated the Planning Commission should review <br />properties just like they are doing tonight. Every parcel that comes up should be discussed, <br />instead of trying to make it general all purpose that does not work for anyone. There will be <br />natural clustering just because of areas where the ground is not buildable, such as between power <br />lines and easements. He would like to see this thrown away. They threw it away years ago and <br />he does not know why it keeps coming up. <br /> <br />Mr. Denny Donovan, 17605 Argon Street NW, stated he thinks this has some valid thought. <br />They all realize this will not be a permanent solution. He views it as a temporary solution to <br />allow them to have good plan in 2008 when the Comprehensive Plan comes due. The City can <br />address the transition of the neighborhoods, open space, and infrastructure. The City should look <br />at the cluster ordinance and housing. There was a nine month moratorium; he is not faulting <br /> <br />Planning Commission/January 4, 2007 <br />Page 18 of 35 <br />