Minutes - Council - 04/08/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

rezoned. State Statutes talk about how zoning ordinances are amended. The process of rezoning these parcels should begin rather soon to comply with the deadline. Upon inquiry, Mr. Kennedy stated there are no penalties, no remedies, and no case law. Mike Nixt, 6010 Radium Circle NW, Ramsey, stated that the question that has not been answered is - if we did update the comprehensive plan, what was it. If we have a comprehensive plan that's been updated, and that update directs how the City can zone property - what's the plan - where's the MUSA line? He disseminated a stack of documents and felt that his information spells it out. He pointed out some correspondence between the City of Ramsey and the Metropolitan Council. He suggested that all of Mr. Barthold's property is not in the MUSA. He understood the City has a agreement with Mr. Barthold, but he has reviewed all the City Council minutes from July 1993, and nothing like this is suggested. The land use is dictated by the comprehensive plan and there is not enough area in the MUSA to do the Apple Ridge development. That property is outside the MUSA. If you did adopt an amendment, it's this one (pointing to a map he had) and it does not allow this development to proceed. Mr. Schroeder disseminated three handouts. The first is an exhibit that was given to the Metropolitan Council - the map that was approved in January 1995. In addition to that, when Council considered its resolution in 1995, the report that included this map was attached. In the Metropolitan Council's files, there ware various maps, memos, exhibits, etc. If you call the Met Council and ask them for the MUSA map of Ramsey, it will look like this except for the second map which he presented. It excludes about a 10-acre parcel in the northeast corner of that subdivision. That's the only difference between the Met Council map and the map on the wall. The third piece of paper he handed out shows the proposed Apple Ridge subdivision. According to the Metropolitan Council file, there are 15 lots that are apparently not within the MUSA line. That area includes about another 20-acre parcel to the east but that's not in the Apple Ridge subdivision. He stated that he had talked to Met Council about the issue of gross acreage and net developable acreage. The question of how this particular 1 O-acre parcel got excluded - he was not clear as to where the MUSA line was reported to be and they requested a map from the City about a month ago. We apparently made an error in what we expected the MUSA to be in what we sent them. I contacted the Met Council staffperson and asked what to do about that. He said the City needs to send a request to Met Council to clarify the issues as to exactly where the line is or is not. Mr. Nixt pointed out that Met Council's documents keep identifying 422 acres and that same number keeps showing up. Then this map all of a sudden shows up with lines moved and it runs right through the middle of 40 acres and it increases the number of acres in the MUSA. There is no affirmation of the executive summary. What was received was this map (the one he presented). He felt this is another attempt of the City staff to shift this through. How do we go from 442 acres to some other number. Wouldn't the gross number of acres also have changed? This is not a coincidence. He stated that the submittal he is noting happens to be the same number of gross acres. City Attorney Goodrich stated that it's obvious this Council and the Metropolitan Council do not understand where various maps have derived from. You should direct someone to investigate City Council/April 8, 1997 Page 6 of 19