Minutes - Council - 07/06/1994 - Joint with Planning & Economic Development Commissions

Home

City Engineer Jankowski discussed where the traffic is being generated from. He also advised that the Anoka County Transportation Plan would be published soon and that they would have some type of recommendation as to where they would like the bridge situated. Councilmember Peterson cited the need to address the policy issues raised, and make no assumptions. He suggested that the City needs to obtain feedback from other agencies as to whether this is feasible, and look at how it will impact other communities if this is the direction it chooses to go in. Councilmember Zimmerman noted that dealing with the City of Dayton is a delicate issue, stating that they are one of the deciding factors of whether there will be a bridge. He stressed the need to be very careful with all the neighboring communities involved (Dayton, Elk River, and Andover), giving ample time to deal with the issues addressed in the amendment. Councilmember Peterson, noting the assumption that the City wants the traffic to enter Ramsey and then disburse in an east-west direction, addressed the need to discuss and reach an agreement regarding such a policy. He also expressed concern that Anoka County may come back with the original bridge proposal in their report and felt it prudent to discuss the new bridge proposal with them. Commissioner Deemer stated that consultant Bill Smith, Biko Associates, is currently working on Andover's Comprehensive Plan and is dealing with Anoka County also, and that the Planning Commission has been led to believe that the County will approve of Ramsey's recommendation. Councilmember Peterson also noted the need to address the amount of residential zoning desired. Chairperson Bawden agreed with the need to determine numbers for land use. He noted that Economic Development Coordinator Gromberg's report listed that Ramsey currently has 580 years worth of Industrial and that residential will be used within 3-1/2 years. Mr. Schroeder suggested not locating the high density residential in one area but disbursing throughout the city. He stated that City Staff intends to conduct a public heating on this in August and take those comments on to City Council, therefore, he suggested reviewing the inventory issue. Councilmember Peterson expressed concern about alarming the public by presenting this to them prematurely. Ms. Frolik advised that it would be best to present one package, recommended by both the Planning Commission and City Council, at the public hearing. Chairperson Bawden commented that the package should be flexible in order to make adjustments from comments received at the public hearing. Councilmember Peterson stated that the City Council's position is that the City cannot deliver high quality services based upon residential zoning, and that U.S. Highway #10 is the best opportunity for non-residential development. Commissioner Ullen stated that land use was a separate issue from the bridge and she felt the City may be losing something by only looking at a bridge scenario. Councilmember Peterson asserted the need to decide whether the City desires more residential or more non-residential than depicted, and he suggested that the Economic Development Commission should address that issue. PC/CC/EDC/July 5, 1994 Page 4 of 5