Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ravenwood Comp Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects comp‑plan amendment for Pulte’s Ravenwood plan; related rezoning and permits denied
Summary
Blaine council voted down a comprehensive-plan amendment that would have allowed medium‑density homes at a parcel on 125th Avenue, causing related rezoning and permits to be denied; council members cited desire to preserve low‑density vision and concerns about housing mix.
The Blaine City Council voted April 6 against a proposal to change the comprehensive plan and rezone property at 3739 125th Avenue to allow a Pulte‑led development of 79 single‑family lots and 56 twin‑home lots.
Director Selman explained the application and showed revised plans developed after council feedback. The change would have reclassified parts of the site from low‑density residential to medium‑density, enabling twin homes in the development flex zoning the applicant requested.
Council member Missolia said she did not support the comp‑plan change: “I do not support this comp plan change. I think we need to stick to low density residential,” she said. Council member Larson and others also expressed concern that the proposal deviated from the vision for that area and that a larger, unique‑lot development would better match earlier planning goals. Council member Newland supported the modified plan, arguing market and cost realities have changed the development landscape and that the revisions reflect prior council feedback.
Because a comprehensive plan amendment requires a supermajority (five affirmative votes), the motion failed on a roll call (two yes, five no). City Attorney Larson advised that, because the comp‑plan amendment failed, the legal basis for the related rezoning, plat and conditional‑use items no longer existed; the council followed with motions to deny items 9.5–9.7.
Why it matters: The vote preserves the city’s existing low‑density guidance for that parcel and means the developer must either revise its approach or pursue other parcels; it also signals council appetite to protect the long‑standing vision for that area rather than accelerate denser infill.
What’s next: The applicant may return with a different proposal that conforms to current land‑use designations or pursue other procedural options, but the council’s supermajority requirement for comp‑plan changes remains the decisive hurdle.
