Agenda - Council - 04/10/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I Mixed Use vs. Industrial, I have several concerns In bottom line is our i residents have been patiently awaiting shopping, 'an ~s01utior~s for their community· The Smart Growth Grant aside, I want~ to ? ~'develol~ed with a _ sense of community and charm. We have an incredible ~ to have pride in our I Highway 10 corridor. There should be some housing, preferably '~fi ~ co~ercial shops in · the mixed use area, to utilize the serv!ces and to balance the whole tpme~t,~?~ith character. _ This also wall reheve some burdens to :ha~i;kigher density housing e ir~;bur mty." Councflmember Anderson stated;ffie transition ts ~mp~g~L~to some e but one of the goals ~ is to protect the integrity of e'~i~[ing n~i~hborhoods.:; ~ ::th~: goal has been here all the [] time and this is a wonderful opportunity~*~hke ad . · Motion by CouncilmeTnber Anderson, s ~ by CounCiimember Kurak, to approve the I Comprehensive pian subje,9~':~o review and c~ent ofthe Metropolitan Council· [] Further di~C~i~sion: Cityi?~lministrator N ¢:~%ommented on the meetings held and [] concessibnS'Ymade with th~'i'?Plan. He st~;;h'e prefers to have 5-0 support and asked Couri;ilmemb~ Zirmne~'an:.ii, f~he,, ~ould,,s~"~rt the Plan if the Central Planning portion was I removed fro~:the'doe~ht!;:~::'C~d'ii~'~b;r Zimmerman stated there has been only two to -- ~ three meetings sin%i CiS:~ncilmember ~ti~i?~k has been on the Council and while making headway -- ?~'~' h~"believes there aJ:¥1'i~i~l hurdles to get over. He stated the worse thing is to jam it down the I ~;'?:::>!/ii ~i~ ':~0i~nciil City Admini~tra'tor N6¥man asked if he would vote for it if that section was removed. :~?:ri? Counmlmember Z~mmerman stated he would not. Councdmember Hendnksen stated that · i?~ December 0'£i 1999 was,, at f~al submission of the Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan I i}~, Council and ii','~'as,''' r ~not u~i~il' October 4 that they considered it to be complete. He stated it is not '~ ~, this Council that ~'is holding people hostage over 4 in 40, it is the Metropolitan Council's edict ithat we have a.~i:i'h 40 at all; a demand they made in the early 1990s. He stated the City did what ~,:.:-. :they could to"not implement it for as long as they could. Councilmember Hendriksen stated if ~:~ they weret° al:low Ramsey to develop in the way we would like to, it would not be an issue. But I that is ~ai demand they are making. Mayor Gamec stated he believes this Plan is excellent the way it i~.and he would not support eliminating the Central Planning section since it would not allow the property owners in the northern area to realize their investment. Mayor Gamec stated the City Council/March 13, 2001 I Page 29 of 31 surrounded by City services. In as much as the services are there and the infrastructure is bonded, we should try to utilize the densities somewhat higher to get a greater payba~i~: ~i~ C~ty faster, rather than wmt~ng for the yet to be sewered yellow propera~8:' ~n our Comprehensive Plan to be developed resldentml. I would hke to see that land ha~':a¢t~e higher designation. We might consider changing the 118 acres east of Sunfish Lake;~ '~¥~nits per acre to 4 umts per acre· It would seem logucal to me that any purchaser a~flevelope~:,i~g,that property would use a PUD form of plat. There ~s enough land area to m an buffer houses where necessary. Also, the collector street, Sunwood Dnve,~should ~e:~ns~dered ...... · ~i:a~ · planmng that area. When we retain the majority of resldentml dev/~io~gt ~n the lower sectmn of Ramsey, south of the current MUSA hne, we are assunng ou~: mt~zens;~he large lot area the hfestyles they moved to Ramsey to enjoy. By undemtd~zmg 6~r emstbg m~tmcmre we ~e risking MUSA exp~sion sooner th~ ~yone, myself ed, wo w~t to see. On ~e -111-