My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council Work Session - 01/11/2011
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council Work Session
>
2011
>
Agenda - Council Work Session - 01/11/2011
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2025 1:27:31 PM
Creation date
1/6/2011 3:46:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Date
01/11/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Facilities: <br />A high priority goal for the City of Ramsey is access to the many miles of river that run along our border. <br />We are extremely fortunate to be bordered by the Mississippi River as well as the Rum River. Our Parks <br />Staff has been working diligently, along with the Anoka County Parks Staff, to develop public access so <br />our residents, and residents of the region, can experience firsthand these important resources. We ask that <br />the draft rules do not impede our ability to develop such access in the limited few areas we still have an <br />opportunity to do so. Other high - priority projects for Ramsey include the development of the Mississippi <br />West Regional Park and the Mississippi River Trail (MRT). <br />As it relates to right -of -way maintenance, it is imperative that we be able to enforce our ordinances <br />related to long grass and vision clearance triangles. These are not only important from an aesthetic <br />standpoint, but from a safety standpoint as well. <br />We also support Anoka County's response to the initial draft rules. We find it important to be able to <br />develop regional parks, which will help permanently protect valuable open space along the corridor, and <br />to continue to plan for desperately needed transportation improvements within the corridor. We find it <br />difficult to support a standard that makes an important river crossing subject to approval of the <br />Commissioner of the DNR. The update to the rules should acknowledge corridors that have already been <br />identified and should not impede the ability of these crossing to occur. We would like to see additional <br />clarification on what is determined as `reasonable and consistent'. <br />Subdivisions and Planned Unit Developments: <br />The City is willing to explore the use of conservation subdivisions. However, we find the requirement for <br />50% dedicated public open space excessive compared to other districts. The City is unable to accept <br />additional maintenance and monitoring obligations for these areas. The City would like to work with the <br />DNR to develop Conservation Subdivision standards separate from our existing PUD standards that <br />includes a lower dedication requirement that is focused on higher priority areas. As stated previously, we <br />would like to explore credit for areas guided for parks /open space within our Comprehensive Plan. <br />As previously stated, the City understands the importance of this critical natural and cultural resource and <br />it is an extremely important piece of our community. The City wishes to provide adequate protections <br />that balance private property rights. Cities have come a long way in managing urban growth since the <br />Executive Order was established. We continue to pride ourselves of our blend of urban and rural <br />character and pride ourselves on a high quality of storm water management. We understand the need for <br />consistency across jurisdictions, but want to ensure that the state rules are indeed the minimum standards <br />necessary in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of our region and the Mississippi River. The <br />City of Ramsey feels that there is still a need for room for local units of government to manage their land <br />use and zoning appropriately, as we are those that are most familiar with the local needs of the area. <br />In summary, a majority of our concerns are with areas guided as CA -2 and potential conflict with our <br />approved Comprehensive Plan. In addition, we feel that this designation has too many standards that are <br />much more restrictive than the remaining districts. If the intent truly is to have consistency across the <br />corridor, then the CA -2 designation requires much revising. <br />Please feel free to contact Tim Gladhill, Associate Planner and MRCCA Working Group member with <br />additional questions or clarification. <br />Sincerely, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.