My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1989-05-11 Minutes
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
1989-05-11 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/5/2010 10:43:49 AM
Creation date
1/5/2010 10:43:44 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
within the city. If the city has not adopted a shoreland <br /> management ordinance, one should be adopted. <br /> 8. P. 32, #17 - there is no definition in the plan for "urban <br /> streets ". Consider something akin to "curb and gutter may <br /> be required as to any street hereafter developed and as to <br /> any project on an existing street ". <br /> In conjunction with this comment, you may wish to review <br /> the provisions of M.S. 429.021 delineating those projects <br /> for which special assessments may be levied. As you are <br /> aware, unless a petition is received by the owners of not <br /> less than 35% in frontage of the real property abutting a <br /> street, a project to be assessed may not be ordered except <br /> upon a vote of 4/5 of the council. Rather than reviewing <br /> each policy which would require or permit special assess- <br /> ment projects, the council may wish to insert a separate <br /> policy which would limit the council's authority to under- <br /> take those projects only when the threshold requirements of <br /> the special assessment law have been complied with. Even <br /> eliminating the mandatory language "shall be" in this item <br /> and substituting "should be ", the council will not be <br /> confronted with the argument that curbs and gutters should <br /> be installed even though the cost could not be specially <br /> assessed. <br /> 9. P. 32, #18 - this is very strong language. While commendable, <br /> I suspect no councilperson would feel comfortable defending <br /> this policy on the witness stand faced with a proven violation <br /> of it. <br /> 10. P. 38, #1 - you may find an annual update difficult to <br /> maintain and perhaps unproductive. Does this policy require <br /> a written report? Perhaps something a little less <br /> demanding such as an annual review of the activities of <br /> each utility would be in order. <br /> 11. P. 38, #5 - I assume you are aware of the provisions of <br /> M.S. 272.67, a copy of which is attached, permitting the <br /> division of a city into urban and rural taxing districts. <br /> To my knowledge, Anoka is not a city of the first class; if <br /> not, this section may be utilized by the city. It is <br /> beneficial if a distinction is appropriate between lands <br /> rural in nature and lands urban in nature where the latter <br /> receive greater services than the former. <br /> 12. P. 39, #17 - I assume MUSA refers to the Municipal Utilities <br /> Service Area or its equivalent. Please consider placing the <br /> acronym immediately following the terms it identifies after <br /> their first use and where isolated. (My only legal concern <br /> is the time required to solve the puzzle, a puzzle for each <br /> -4- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.