My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 10/12/1989
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
1989
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 10/12/1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2025 10:16:01 AM
Creation date
11/19/2003 3:26:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
10/12/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
200
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
Ramsey City Planning Board <br /> <br />August <br /> <br />We are concerned that this section provides too <br />complicated and too costly requirements, so that <br />they will act as a deterrent to development, <br /> <br />It requires reports from hydrolog~sts, biologists, <br />botanists, soil scientists and other technical per- <br />sons, as well as a very costly survey. It requires <br />that all flora and fauna be identified and mapped <br />including identifying, describing and mapping <br />every tree. On some of our potential lots there <br />may be more than 100 trees. <br /> <br />Gentlemen, this section is unreasonable in its re- <br />quirements. Certainly you can devise an ordinance <br />which will accomplish your inten~ and still facilitate <br />developmen, t, instead of making it so'diffic~-~--and ~ <br />c~stly. This section (with others) eliminat~s-.t~he <br />the possib~liYy of a small developer.or land owner <br />'fleveloping the property, because of the heavy capi- <br />tal requirements. <br /> <br />~See~i on.12D~. 011ZCtJ d).~-st~t~ a ~" <br /> <br />clr._.qett~f:~-.~r~dit in an amount of~5Xl~,f.~xpected <br />~v..._~l~pme~s~ as determined by the City Engin;er.-'''~' <br /> <br />We have two concerns r61ative to this provision: <br /> <br />a) <br /> <br />This is a very costly requirement which, ~_n con- <br />junction with the costly requirements discussed <br />above, discourage development, if not make it <br />unlikely. I am told by City personnel that is is <br />not a typical provision for development else- <br />where in the City. <br /> <br />b) This .provision has no place buried in this ordin- <br /> <br />~ It belongs in the City Subdivision Ordinance, <br />if it is to be anywhere. <br /> <br />1983 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.