My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2001 Correspondence
>
Comprehensive Plan
>
Comprehensive Plan (old)
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
2001 Correspondence
>
2001 Correspondence
>
2001 Correspondence
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/14/2014 1:00:13 PM
Creation date
12/7/2006 7:34:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Miscellaneous
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
163
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Patrick trudgeon - Re: Last night meeting Page 1 <br />From: <br />To: <br />Date: <br />Subject: <br />Sylvia Frolik <br />Patrick trudgeon <br />07/30/2001 10:38AM <br />Re: Last night's meeting <br />As for the Central Planning Area, I still say and Natalie disagrees but Jim should recall our discussions. <br />The Comp Plan is supposed to contain an Urban Reserve Area for possible sewer and water extension <br />beyond 2020. To do that, our only option was to go north into already developed areas and propose <br />sewer and water and that would be a political hot button. Before you came, Jim and I looked at the map <br />and decided that there would be market pressure north of the smart growth site and in 20 years those <br />homes may be ready for sewer and water and /or redevelopment. We still knew we couldn't call it urban <br />reserve, we had to soften it, so we told them we would 'study' the feasibility of adding that area to the <br />musa in 2020. It was our tradeoff for an 'urban reserve area'. Just as before in our previous urban <br />reserve area, we would discourage any further development and to do that we would retain 4 in 40 in that <br />central planning area. That also helped up the total acreage being kept in 4 in 40 in exchange for <br />abolishing 4 in 40 inthe greater rural area So, what I am saying is that they didn't hold us to the fire for <br />an urban reserve area ... we got to do a central planning area instead. I know that won't satisfy Terry <br />but that's my recollection of how we got to that central planning area. I suppose we could say that it <br />helped in our quest to abolish 4 in 40 in a majority of the rural area. <br />»> Patrick trudgeon 07/27/01 10:18AM »> <br />From my notes from last night, I have the following action items <br />1) Get a copy of Burnsville's Heart of the City (mixed use) ordinance to the City Council. I have a <br />copy and we can include in your weekly update if you like. <br />2) Get TH answer regarding Central Planning Area., Specifically, what did the City get in return <br />from Met Council when the Central Planning Area was included in the March 2001 draft? <br />3) Get language to put in comp plan that does not require residents within the MUSA to hook to <br />sanitary sewer and muncipal water if septic system is working. (Perhaps put our sewer hookup <br />policy in the the Comp Plan? <br />4) Bring back the three drafts for the density transition ordinance. <br />5) Get QCTV a list of all City meetings. (Weekly Update). <br />Let me know if you have any other action items to add. <br />Patrick Trudgeon <br />Principal Planner <br />City of Ramsey <br />15153 Nowthen Blvd. <br />Ramsey, MN 55303 <br />(763) 427 -1410 (office) <br />(763) 427 -5543 (fax) <br />ptrudgeon@ci.ramsev.mn.us <br />p Id ►at <6cA ,40:14t <br />'/1/' VYV ,r.G1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.