Agenda - Council - 04/10/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ISTS language was revised. Now they have taken away area and want it studied before ~}~, put 2.5 acre lots back in. He reviewed the boundaries of the study area and indicatedq:i~h//~ citizens within that area should bear in mind the Metropolitan Council wants a of the~!~:~ extension of sewer and water to their homes. He stated the Metropolitan of an example development with large lot developments and redrawn property ed to 20-30 homes on urban sized lots in the middle of a neighborhood. He won't get sewer and water but other neighbors will want an urban the neighborhood. Also, the ordinance contains no language on urban provide protection. He stated he knows there are three votes to but he will not vote in support because of issues and artificial )olitan Council is putting up to say if you don't do this we Will take the Hendriksen stated Ramsey has offered to designate on this plan a very study they are talking about but that is not what Council wants and demands the City pass a Comprehensive Plan ~: consistent with the goal of their study so even if the City .doesn't like it allow the uses in that area. Ms Haas Steffen stated it is common~p~ctice if the City wants its Plan passed by the Metropolitan Council that ~tliey, ~eep,,~,,sending draPt plans or plans to the Metropolitan Council to make ~u~ fli'e?~i~i~h3z~:~ approved Plan ~they finally get it completed. That is what Ramg~'!fii~iil;!!"She e>~i~i~i~ ,~hen a fo~:fii: plan is submitted, it tigers a timing mechanism as ~:~iuired*~',:!State Statut~'i~?k'C{ }sallowed to languish. She stated the study that Councilmember He//'~sen is~ t~ng to .~:'!~[°ne as an "infomercial" that showed where cities, not the Metropolita~!~Oun~i~;had don velopment. Ms. Haas Steffen clarified that the Metropolitan Council do~"~{~.ig~ in and redfbvelop; cities decide they want to redevelop and askthe Metrbpolitan CouncilT6i~;mon~y to do that. She stated the purpose of the oppormnity,g~t'~ite was'~e~ clear when it~ ne~9~tiated on November 7, 2000 and that has not changed~i t~ says specifi~i'!y that the City :i'~lentify a minimum of 100 acres mixed use and the'CoUncil knew whatT;fflWas applying ~?~'i~e stated if the COuncil does not want it, the CounCil ~m~d'have tol~,h~ib{lt she, took the ~ncil at its word. Councilmember '~rak'~stated she has not made many comments while it was studied since she ~<?;;7'hh~'iSnly been on tl~;id6uncil for two months. But she believes she owes an explanation of what she likes and does not l~e<. COuncdmember Kurak stated there are four remmrung issues fi.om last nigl~f"since one, IsTS~*'(~a~" resolved. She stated the remaining issues are the Central Planning Ar'e~ Density T£~i~tion, Land Use Map and classifications on the map. She read the following prepared statement. ISTS, Independent Sewage Tracking Systems, cesspools. I have stated my views on the ISTS clearly along with my reasoning I have not changed my mind on this item but !'i'~i~ want to have staff identify what type of City based fees will be charged_in ,relation to th~;in'Spections. I do not want the City to charge our citizens any more than the cost '~(' incurred by the mailings and record keeping. The Central Planning Area is not a Problem for me for these reasons. The greatest advantage that I see is removing the 4 in 40 fi.om our citizens in the northern part of the city. This allows them to realize some income fi.om their property investment. Our City Council will guide the land development during the plat approval process. City Council/March 13, 2001 Page 27 of 31 -109-