Laserfiche WebLink
June 30, 1977 <br />Planning Commission <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Bob Isakson, Consulti.n§ Engineers Diversified, Inc., explained that the proposed <br />Sewage Disposal Systems Ordinance would establish a policy relating to Ramsey <br />citizens for individual sewage disposal.. The proposed ordinance also gives <br />construction requirements. <br /> <br />He explained that the major difference between this and other septic tank ordinances <br />is that it requires an inspection, done by the City, of new work as well as of all <br />back work done earlier to see that an existing system is operating properly. And <br />secondly, every two years all septic tanks are inspected again. If at that time <br />the system does not meet the specifications of the ordinance, the owner will be <br />directed to have the tank pumped. It was explained that the inspection portion <br />of the ordinance would not go into effect until the City could establish the <br />proper program funding. <br /> <br />Mr. Isakson explained that the proposed amendment to the Subdivision ordinance <br />provides for the physical procedure of evaluating a particular area for approval <br />as sites for individual sewage disposal systems. <br /> <br />Mr. Gamec called for input from citizens present. <br /> <br />Merle Anderson, 6224 Rivlyn Avenue, wanted to know if this was the official hearing <br />of the zoning ordi.annce and Mr. Gamec said that it was. Mr. Anderson asked how many <br />got a copy of the soning ordinance and Mr. Gamec explained that s summary of changes <br />was at the door. He explained that unless someone went to the City Hall they did <br />not see the entire thing because it was 47 pages long'. Mr. Anderson asked if it <br />needed publishing and Attorney Goodrich said not until it was passed. <br /> <br />Mr. Anderson wanted to know how much of the City is being rezoned and wanted to be <br />shown on a map. Attorney Goodrich showed him on a map what was different than that <br />depicted, what was still the same and how it was changed and where. <br /> <br />Mr. Anderson made known his disagreement with the proposed policy regarding <br />permitting uses. <br /> <br />He brought up the fact that the map was in error showing some of the areas in the <br />City. He expressed concern that if this plan goes through and is passed according <br />to the map which is in error, it is still final and he wants to know what can be <br />done about it. <br /> <br />Attorney Goodrich explained that it was not intended to rezone anything in the area <br />that Mr. Anderson is talking about (which is within the critical area and s~ome of <br />the scenic and wild area) and if there is an error, it will be amended. <br /> <br />Mr. Anderson said that if we are adopting an ordinance geared to this map, we are in <br />trouble, but if adopting according to legal description, okay. Attorney Goodrich <br />said that the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact will define this legal descrip- <br />tion. <br /> <br />Mr. Gustafson, 6256 Rivlyn Avenue, brought up that it was mentioned five years ago <br />that this map was in error and is recorded in the minutes that it is. He agrees <br />that it is a small part of the map, but said that they have been fighting for five <br />years about a beer warehouse that was built in a residential area because they were <br />granted a permit to build. <br /> <br />Mr. Anderson specifically requested that the legal description adopted in the <br />rezoning previously be adopted in this change if there is going to be a change. <br /> <br />Attorney Goodrich said that' he thinks this request could be honored because we <br /> <br /> <br />