My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/19/2008 - Jt Work Session CC/Planning
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2008
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/19/2008 - Jt Work Session CC/Planning
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:44:45 AM
Creation date
3/8/2013 1:33:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Title
Jt Work Session CC/Planning
Document Date
02/19/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN <br />ISSUES POSTED WITH DISCUSSION NOTES <br />October 24, 2007 <br />ISSUE: Look into Connecting to Adjoining Cities -Elk River and Andover <br />• Talk to adjoining towns about cost sharing of utilities <br />• Check with Andover and Elk River <br />• Elk River only'h mile from Ramsey now. <br />ISSUE: How do we Decide on Where Sewer and Water is Extended? <br />• It should go where it is best for the health and welfare of the citizens <br />• Density -current and future of where it is going <br />• Suitability <br />• How do we decide what controlled city sewer and water is? <br />• Who Decides? <br />1. Must be aplan -long term <br />2. Flexible Plan <br />3. Citizens and Council not side interest <br />4. Should take infrastructure into account <br />5. Current three ways: Petition, 4/3 council, you can pay for it <br />6. Goes past your house then you should be a stakeholder <br />• Stakeholders <br />1. Developer (citizens?) <br />2. People in immediate neighborhood <br />3. Anyone in the path ofright-of--way <br />4. All stakeholders should be able to petition <br />• Definition of Votes -Different Votes/Views <br />1. One man, one vote <br />2. Lots are votes -current lots <br />3. Lots are votes -future lots <br />• Should be another open forum to address the implementation of ideas presented here in that <br />portion of the comp plan <br />• The heart of the issue is the economic impact on neighbors vs. landowner developer <br />ISSUE: No Assessment Above Real Benefit <br />• Comp Plan Shall State: <br />1. For the purpose of calculating benefit, the benefit to the current use will be used. <br />2. Benefit will NOT be calculated based on some hypothetical other use <br />3. Ability to subdivide or rezone will not be considered unless requested by property owner <br />4. Respect current property owners property rights <br />ISSUE: What is Kindest on the Environment? Tom Evans <br />• Which is more environmentally friendly private or municipal? <br />• Expand city sewer & water only to high density <br />• Manage our ground water to zero loss <br />ISSUE: Cost. Steve, Brian, and Data Source <br />• Comp Plan Shall State: <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.