My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 03/22/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
2005
>
Minutes - Council - 03/22/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/24/2025 1:44:32 PM
Creation date
4/28/2005 7:36:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
03/22/2005
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
Mr. Dick Church, 6900 168th Avenue NW, stated Bob Hamborg has said what they all want to <br />say and he thinks the City Council knows how the residents feel. Mr. Church stated if audience <br />members were sitting in the Council's seats, this development wouldn't happen. He noted the <br />Sweet Bay soil is contaminated with lead and he would like to see compliance from the MPCA <br />belbre the Council considers passing a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Church pointed <br />()ut that going up to the Brookfield development; there is only one main entrance from Highway <br />#5 into the development. The other entrances come south through the residential areas. He <br />would like to see two entrances so it takes labor off those City streets. He stated he would also <br />like the Council to look at traffic flow should a stoplight be put in. He stated all want to know <br />how the Council will keep the City of Ramsey safe. Mr. Church stated he is concerned about the <br />safety of people running through the neighborhoods that should not be doing so. He also <br />questioned how many resident dollars have to support extended police, fire and public works to <br />maintain these issues. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec noted Mr. Church's comments relate to Case #6. <br /> <br />Mr. Jim Overtoom, 16660 Jaspar Street, stated residents heard that if approved, both <br />developments require an EAW to be completed to study effects on the areas around them. <br />l lowever, an EAW for each project will only look at the individual damage done to streets, open <br />spaces, safety, water quality, traffic, and noise due to that project. It would study only the effect <br />on areas immediately around those projects and not take into consideration the effect of each <br />project on the overall traffic, noise, safety, street maintenance requirements, public safety for the <br />City in general. He suggested that the Comprehensive Plan of 2001 has been effectively scrapped <br />by the City Council and, in its place, indiscriminate random development allowed to dictate to <br />the City what is to be done. Rather, each development gets approved on its own microcosm <br />~vithout consideration of the effect on the whole. He commented on the studies ordered and joint <br />agreements entered into with Anoka County and the public meetings that were attended by <br />l'esidcnts. However, Planning Commission Chair Nixt indicated those who attended those <br />meetings don't qualify as a cross section of Ramsey's 22,000 residents, and more public <br />involvement and input is needed to determine "what is Ramsey." <br /> <br />Mr. Overtoom asked if residents want to be part of a rural community with 1-5 acre lots or an <br />urban packed community. If the latter, the Town Center is already planned to be packed with <br />2,000 residential units; and the area south of MUSA is already packed with happy residents. He <br />asked where is Ramsey of rural areas where those other residents can live. Mr. Overtoom noted <br />the City Charter requires the Council to prepare and hold a public hearing each year detailing the <br />long term financial plan for the City, including a capital improvement plan and five-year <br />financial forecast. He voiced questions whether planning has included the northeast/northwest <br />sewer alignment alternatives and cost of associated sewer connectors, watermain improvements, <br />connections, construction of existing City streets, costs resulting from increased traffic demands, <br />or additional maintenance of infrastructure. In addition, he asked whether the cash flow of <br />unplanned random development designed to maximize profit potential of the developer and <br />minimize input from citizens is enough to suppm~t those additional costs. Or, does the City <br />borrow deeper into bonded debt. Mr. Overtoom maintained that the Comprehensive Plan has <br />served the residents well for 20 years. However, it is no longer effective and will not be until a <br /> <br />City Council / March 22, 2005 <br /> Page 13 of 38 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.