03/14/90 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Commissioner Fults stated he really didn't care to visit the businesses if the things they voiced concern about in the Star City Business Retention Study hadn't been addressed at all. Commissioner Ippel read through the list of questions that were listed on the Star City Business Retention Study and also read some of the comments as far as what some of the business owners were concerned about. He also informed the commission of the things he had done to rectify some of the problems the business owners were having. Chairman Wagner reminded the Commission that the business visitations were not meant to be like the Star City interviews. Instead, they were to get the Economic Development Commission members to meet the business owners and become more of a visible entity. He also commented that if Commissioner Ippel had worked on all the concerns he was talking about, then in fact, something had been done with the voiced concerns from the business owners. A considerable amount of time was devoted to discussing the concerns of the business owners, the Star City Business Retention Study and meeting with the City Council to relay the concerns to them. Mr. Gromberg suggested meeting with business owners and reporting the findings and suggestions to the City Council at least once a year Chairman Wagner stated the confidentiality part of the report would have to be dealt with. He also called attention to the fact that it is up to the Economic Development Commission to come up with a system to do something about the complaints and concerns of local business owners. He stressed the need for suggestions. Commissioner Ippel insisted the problems have been brought to City Staff and City Council and that they have been totally ignored. He feels it's ridiculous to meet with them (the business owners) again. Chairman Wagner explained he wanted all the Economic Commission members active in visiting the local businesses, not just Commissioner Ippel. He said let them (the business owners) know who you are and what you can do for them. It was the consensus of the Commission that this case be tabled for now and discussed further at the next meeting due to a shortage of time. Case #3; Set Agcn0a for March 21. 1990 Joint Meeting with Ramsey City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission and Economic Development Commission Commissioner Gorecki reported on the meeting the subcommittee held regarding this case. He said the subjects were: Zoning interpretations and CUP process. It was the consensus at the meeting that the zoning laws in the City of Ramsey are straight forward and that the problem lies more in the interpretation..There is a need to sit with the people involved in the decisions regarding the zoning ordinances and get the interpretation right. The next question is what the CUP process should be. It should always be done the same way. Commissioner Gorecki informed the Commission that in Brooklyn Park all businesses have to have a CUP but Ramsey City Council didn't feel that was the way to do it. Platting and subdividing was also discussed. The consensus was that the EDC should get together an organized packet regarding these issues and submit it at the joint meeting. Mr. Gromberg informed the Commission they can submit all problems, but that they should also submit different ideas to handle the problems at the same time. Economic Development Commission/March 14, 1990 Page 3 of 5