From Our City. Timed that way. While you're looking the other way, they are wisely trash-canning the entire cluster nonsense, or suggesting it be done; but the stealth in it is unwisely going back to 4-in-40; not to the previous workable situation of 2-1/2 acre lots.
The mischief is on the city website, so have a look.
The contact "public servant" is: Amy Geisler (763) 433-9903 [and if you want responses in writing, email = ageisler@ci.ramsey.mn.us ]
Because I would like (and I have the right to expect and do expect) written answers from the contact "public servant" prior to the scheduled Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007, 7 pm meeting, I am emailing Ms. G. the following few simple questions.
I will post her response on this site, as soon as I clear it from my email.
MY FEW SIMPLE QUESTIONS:
1. Your proposed Ramsey Code Sect. 9.20.11 starts off talking about something called "the 2020 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA)," and this term is a mystery to me. What's it mean? Why is it in the code? What is the "2020 MUSA"? My impression is that all notion of a MUSA line was eliminated in order to cross Alpine with Sewer/water, so as to ultimately route same to gun club & northward to accommodate very specific developer interests. What's up, with that term?The history was, 4-in-40, for a long and disliked time. Then 2-1/2 acres were allowed, but when Tiger Meadows actually went and did it; the planner-think folk had the clustering brain cramp. Now, they admit it was error and a mess, but with the 2008 Comp. Plan beginning in swing, they jump us on tricky notice and go to this 4-in-40 again when the Met. Council apparently did NOT quell the 2-1/2 acre lots. This simply looks too much like a crass staff attempt to dictate what is a citizen decision process - determination of our 2008 Comp. Plan - OUR Plan - and I dislike that appearance very, very much and urge other citizens to challenge the methodology of city "public servants" as I am doing.
2. What is the point of leaving 9.20.11 Subd. 2(d) "Townhome" language? Isn't that problematic, for that area, and suggesting PUD favoritism might be available to specifically favored developers up north there, as per favoritism in past sewer/water routing decision-making?
3. What's wrong with the Tiger Meadows answer? It seems to have been an ideal and perfect deveopment, with an attractive housing option not available per Town Center crowded circumstances, nor per Peterson crowded circumstances - something for people who do not like crowding. They do exist, to escape crowding is why many moved to Ramsey, Tiger Meadows was promptly sold out and probably would sell out quickly also in today's less-vigorous housing market. Unlike other inventory.
4. Who is advocating going back to the 4-in-40? Cluster housing - bad idea - sure get rid of it; but then --- who's benefited during its tenure, some have gotten approvals, etc.? Again, the question is favortism vs. the rest of us. Has that been a factor at play?
5. Regarding Subd. 2(g), What is "noncommercial horseboarding" and with other changes in city law re horses and their regulation, elimination of a specific board, etc., who would oversee and police "noncommercial horseboarding" whatever it is?
6. BOTTOM LINE QUESTION: Why not have more Tiger Meadows kind of development; instead of abandoning the brain-cramp idiocy of cluster housing; but not going back to what its passage torpedoed? 2=1/2 acre lots worked. It worked fine at Tiger Meadows. Former City Administrator James E. Norman tried to lean on the property owner there to do clustering, and thankfully the man had the backbone to say, in effect, "BS, Jim, I want no part of it and I insterad want to develop precisely in accordance with the Comp. Plan as it now stands." So you guys went and changed the plan so that such a sensible thing would not recur. And it was NICE and it worked FINE!
7. A collateral question: Why not some better kind of notice? Sending a little card over Christmas, when people are "looking the other way" for a change of this magnitude is suggestive that even though James Norman's leaving, his spirit and ways and means linger. Why not more notice for folks to think and talk to one another? Why this way, this style, still? IT LOOKS LIKE MORE OF THAT "TO US" INSTEAD OF "FOR US" OR "WITH US. " Do you disagree, and what's your explanation of the timing, if different from mine?