Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Olson, to amend the <br />motion on the floor as follows: To adopt Resolution #06-09-310 identifying findings of <br />fact in suppqrt of approving the request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to <br />Metropolitan Council for the three northern unplatted parcels, as the revised site plan <br />indicates; Case ofMN Skyline Partners, LLC, contingent on meeting all ofthe criteria for <br />the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, with the addition of condition no. 4 to the <br />resolution to state that the land use change will be contingent on preliminary plat <br />approval of Skyline Pointe. <br /> <br />Motion on amendment carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Cook, <br />Olson, Elvig, Jeffrey, Olson, and Strommen. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Motion on the amended motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers <br />Cook, Pearson, and Olson. Voting No: Councilmembers Elvig, Jeffrey, and Strommen. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Councilmember Elvig requested the preliminary plat discussion <br />include language regarding the traffic concern. <br /> <br />Case #9: <br /> <br />Request to Rezone Property from R-l Single Family Residential to <br />Planned Unit Development; Case of MN Skyline Partners, LLC <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon advised several of the findings as drafted <br />are in the negative supporting the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of <br />the rezoning, specifically finding nos. 11, 16 and 17. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen noted the rezoning to PUD may not be necessary due to the <br />discussion of decreasing the number of units. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon suggested the discussion proceed to the <br />preliminary plat under Case No.1 0, prior to the rezoning discussion. <br /> <br />Case #10: <br /> <br />Request for Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Site Plan Approval of <br />Skyline Pointe; Case of MN Skyline Partners, LLC <br /> <br />Ms. Sarah NaIT, 6100 - I51S! Lane NW, stated this is the residents' fourth meeting citing <br />their case for a very strong community. They have submitted a petition with 50 plus <br />signatures saying they do not want the zoning changed from R-l to R-2. Usually one or <br />two people will come to these City Council meetings, but they are all here saying not to <br />do this rezoning. They cannot even get out onto Highway 5; it took her eight minutes on <br />Monday to get onto the road. The residents are here to make a strong point. A lot of <br />people are getting caught up in that this development looks pretty. That is great, she <br />wants Ramsey to look pretty; she has lived here her entire life. But greenspace. gets them <br />nowhere if they are killed in a car accident trying to get onto Highway 5. Ms. Narr stated <br />everything they have been presented with for this development is R-2, but the property is <br />zoned R-l. The Comprehensive Plan has this property zoned as R-l. They live on a <br />block with % of an acre to one and two acre lots, and all of a sudden they will be <br /> <br />-159- <br /> <br />