04/11/90 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Commis:;ione- Fulls stated he really didn'! care to visit the businesses if thc thin?~ they voiced concern atxmt in the Star City Business Retentkm Stud)' hadn't been addressed at al),. Commissioner Ippel read through the list of questions that were listed on the Sea~ City Business Retention Study and also read some' of the comments as far as what some of the business owners were concerned' abou',. He also infom~ed the commission of thc things he had done to rectify some of tile proble~ ~s the business owners were having. Chaimaan Wagner reminded the Commission that the business visitations were nol meant to be like tile 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 Stud), and meeting with the City Council to relay the concerns to them. I¢Ir. Gromberg suggested meeting with business owners and reporting tile findings and suggestions to tile 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 lppel insisted the problems have been brought to City Staff and City Council and that tile), 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 visi~ng 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 Agenda for March 2I, 1990 Joint Meeting wil;h R~Imscy Council, Planning and Zqning Commi,$$ion i~nfl Ecgn~mi¢ Develo_~ment 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 wa),. 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. Plaiting 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