Laserfiche WebLink
period in which owners of large tracts of land can plat their property into <br />2.5 acre lot sizes. One problem with this approach is that there would be <br />a demand to develop the 2.5 acre lots, which would include areas fairly <br />close to the urban area, and this would seal off growth of utilities into <br />areas where they may be needed. In the interim of amending the 2000 year <br />boundary, Ramsey has requested a partial expansion of the urban area to <br />recognize the desire of property owners to develop with utilities. In both <br />cases of partial expansion and amending the year 2000 boundaries, Metro <br />Council has indicated that they will not be recommending approval of <br />Ramsey's Comprehensive Plan amendment without the 1 in 10 policy in place. <br />If Ramsey adopts the 1 in 10 policy, it also needs to adopt other policies <br />related to it that will protect the area that may develop into 2.5 acre <br />lots that we don't want to develop into 2.5 acre lots, specifically those <br />areas close to the 1990 and 2000 urban areas. The urban area often <br />represents a boundary established by Metro Council. That area between <br />Ramsey's boundaries and the boundaries Ramsey has agreed to with Metro <br />Council may be an area where we may not permit development of 2.5 acre lots <br />but rather have immediate implementation of the 1 in 10 policy to be sure <br />we don't seal off future potential growth. <br /> <br />Chairman Zimmerman inquired as to the consequences if Ramsey did not amend <br />it's comprehensive plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Hartley replied that Metro Council can refuse any further extension of <br />utilities within the existing urban area if Ramsey doesn't begin to enforce <br />the 1 in 10 policy. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Howell and seconded by Commissioner Shumway to table <br />action regarding the proposed amendment to the City's 1990 Comprehensive <br />Plan and direct City Staff to prepare facts and figures for the Commission <br />to use as a basis for dealting with the density issue at it's regular <br />meeting in August. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Zimmerman, Commissioners Shumway, <br />Terry, LaDue, Hendriksen and Howell. Voting No: None. Absent: <br />Commissioner Holm. <br /> <br />Refer to page 5 for further discussion. <br /> <br />Case #2; <br /> <br />Request For City Participation (Tax Increment Financing) In <br /> Proposed Expansion.And Request For Sit~e Plan Review~ Case <br /> Altron. Inc.: <br /> <br />Ms. Norris stated that Altron is requesting City participation in a maximum <br />amount of $200,000 for site improvements in their expansion project. The <br />cash flow projections indicate that the project will generate sufficient <br />revenue to support that amount of participation. The Economic Development <br />Commission has recommended approval of the request. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Shumway and seconded by Commissioner Howell to <br />recommend approval of the request by Altron, Inc for City participation in <br />the proposed expansion and the proposed site plan. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairman Zimmerman, Commissioners Shumway, <br />Terry, Hendriksen, Howell and LaDue. Voting No: None. Absent: <br />Planning & Zoning Commission/July 7, 1988 <br /> <br />Page 4 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />