My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2004
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2004
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:34:00 AM
Creation date
8/2/2004 8:18:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
08/05/2004
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
253
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
47 is a. County road, so this affects the County also. He indicated it would be something they <br />would need to ask the League of Minnesota Cities and the City Attorney.. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer stated he understands what Commissioner Johnson. is saying about <br />including other areas but does not think it is fair to change the rules for someone who bought <br />land and is ready to develop .to now have this extra cost. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson argued that people with land in the rural reserve will have the same <br />expectations as those in developing areas. He stated the only thing it affects is how much they <br />are charging for lots. <br /> <br />Chai~T2erson Nixt stated the concept is worth exploring. He indicated it enforces the theory that if <br />land within the line is more valuable it now becomes even more valuable becauSe it does not <br />have an infrastructure fee with it. He stated the point is-they have a 90-day moratorium and <br />cannot rewrite the entire ordinance in that time. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald stated they may be able to discuss this with the Comprehensive Plan re- <br />write they are pursuing. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler noted what they are talking about is impact fees, and her understanding <br />is they are not legal in Minnesota. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated the question is really should we allow development to go forward, rather <br />than what is the impact if it goes forward. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson indicated one major problem they face when they go-into areas that <br />develop haphazardly is the road network. He asked hoTM many times they have seen a road come <br />down and have a bad hook up because the area was not developed properly. He believes they <br />have to have thought on how the to'ad network should work and then preserve that as they allow <br />people to develop. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer stated this would be true for all the infrastructure corridors, such as roads, <br />sewer and water. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt indicated it is easy to focus on rural development as primarily residential, but <br />what about commercial and quasi-public uses. He questioned what services would be needed for <br />those residents. He stated this is not just about clustering and ghost platting. He indicated he <br />favors clustering, as he sees it as an opportunity to get something now and hold something back <br />fbr later. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated he likes clustering too, but he still wants to pay attention to the <br />corridor issue. He indicated he is not talking aboUt a grid system, but some Way to keep the <br />system orderly. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/June 3, 2004 <br /> Page 14 of 18 <br /> <br />103 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.