The agenda tells us a special meeting of our council will be held tomorrow, Tuesday, Jan. 16, because the nine month cluster-&-ghost plat moratorium is running out ---- and why is it running out causing a special meeting to be needed?
Well, April 11, last year, this little timing trick transpired:
City Attorney Goodrich advised the moratorium is proposed for a term of one year. The moratorium can be repealed at any time by the City Council if the work is complete.
Mayor Gamec commented he has not heard anyone on the Council that is opposed to the cluster development. The concern is to address things such as greenways and protecting certain areas. He noted the Shade Tree development brought up the problems of dealing with this type of development.
Motion by Councilmember Elvig, seconded by Councilmember Cook, to adopt Ordinance #06-07 to establish an interim moratorium ordinance in the R-1 Rural Developing Zoning District, for a nine-month period to provide time for the City to study development within the RuralDeveloping area and the cluster subdivision ordinance.
[emphasis in original council minutes] That's right, 12 months proposed, two in particular thought 9 months was better, and now a special meeting to bring it to the original 12 month duration. It goes to show ...
Realistically, however, more time clearly is needed.
The new Comprehensive Plan will be worked on and there is the RAMSEY3 proposal which envisions possible clustering but in a well thought out way (potentially with real density transition and not mere screening-berming cosmetic measures). Also, as I understand the concept, RAMSEY3 calls into scrutiny and debate other land friendly and "rural mood" friendly possibilities, whatever we citizens can think of and favor; while in the interim, if council follows planning commission wisdom, rural landowners will not be wholly without realistic chances to develop their land for an indefinite and perhaps lengthy Comprehensive Plan review period - which will require an indeterminate amount of time to finalize despite completion by 2008 being envisioned.
If the interim solution will be that 2-1/2 acre lots are permitted [with staff authorized to require in-plat conformance to anticipated future infrastructure routing needs and having power to deny permission to 2-1/2 acre proposals incompatible with plans], then things will be just as Planning Commissioner VanScoey proposed and as the Commission unanimously approved at Public Hearing.
Things will be cordial if council has the will to not impose a 4-in-40 de facto total moratorium while those in the reserve will see and wonder about another promoter working off inventory of urban sized sewer/water lots in the west part of Ramsey, south of Trott Brook.
Given the current market there will be no groundswell of 2-1/2 acre activity.
And speculation of favoritism articulated by one gentleman (and probably felt by others from the murmuring in the crowd when the man spoke at the Planning Commission Public Hearing of worry about potential favoritism for Brookfield) can be proven false by council permitting 2-1/2 acre activity per the Van Scoey language. That language permitted much staff discretion but avoided a full wooden absolute de facto moratorium.
The general Public Hearing mood was decidedly in favor of 2-1/2 development being allowed, and staff is totally able to manage that prudently under the measure Van Scoey advanced.
It would be a win-win answer that would prove any claim of favoritism false.
With all of this, Ben probably would shrug his shoulders if he had shoulders.
Instead he constantly smiles that same cheerful painted metallic "tax-me-and-I-lose-no-cheer" smile. Who knows what true feelings lie beneath this public yellow-painted happy face smiling veneer, which Ben the Ramsey Taxpayer always politely displays.