Agenda - Council - 10/13/2026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Kathy Schmitz From: Kathy Schmitz Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2026 3:47 PM To: Kathy Schmitz Subject: FW: October 13 Public Hearing — 600-Foot Cul-de-Sac Standard I Evidence Packet & Public Record Request Attachments: Oct13_Ramsey_Consolidated_Council_Packet_v19.pdf From: paul olson <paulo0684@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2026 3:45 PM To: Ryan Heineman <rheineman@citvoframsevmn.gov>; Chris Riley <crilev@citvoframsevmn.gov>; Kirsten Buscher <I<buscher@cityoframsevmn.gov>; Michael Olson <molson@cityoframseymn.gov>; Eric Peters <EPeters@citvoframsevmn.gov>; Dan Specht <dspecht@citvoframsevmn.gov>; Shanna Stewart <SStewa rtp citvofra m sevm n.gov> Cc: Katie Schmidt <Kschmidt@citvoframsevmn.gov> Subject: October 13 Public Hearing — 600-Foot Cul-de-Sac Standard I Evidence Packet & Public Record Request EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This email originated from outside the City of Ramsey email system. Unless you recognize the sender and know the content, DO NOT click any links or open attachments.. Mayor Heineman and Council Members, Ahead of the October 13 public hearing regarding Ramsey's 600-foot cul-de-sac standard, I am attaching a supporting evidence packet for your review. I respectfully request that this email and the complete attached evidence packet be formally submitted into the public record for the October 13 public hearing and included with the materials considered by the City Council. Please confirm by reply that both this email and the complete evidence packet have been received and will be entered into the public record for the hearing. After reviewing Ramsey's own records, Minnesota guidance, engineering and planning standards, neighboring communities, public -safety information and infrastructure considerations, I keep coming back to one simple question: What changed? As recently as 2025, Ramsey required a formal variance for an approximately 640-foot cul-de-sac—even though Fire did not object to the additional 40 feet. Fire's acceptance supported an exception; it did not make the underlying standard unnecessary. There is another process question in the attached record that I believe deserves Council's attention. Earlier Rum River Retreat materials described the proposed road as both a "Future Thru Street" and as needing a cul-de-sac length variance because it exceeded 600 feet. In the later preserved chronology, the variance requirement was removed through an interpretation of how the ordinance applied —not through a documented shortening of the road or secured western outlet. The road didn't change. The interpretation did. 1