Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Elvig stated his concern is with developing a package that makes development <br />easy instead of development that is good for the City, which is infill development. <br /> <br />Mr. Bilotta stated they can add that detail by identifying areas that should be focused on adjacent <br />to sewers or to allocate a certain amount of growth. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen asked about the process and what the City hopes to get from public <br />input on the three land use scenarios. She stated her concern is the things people are most able to <br />pick up on are the number of units and location. Those are exactly the two things they have tried <br />to get away from through the Ramsey3 process in developing a participatory approach. <br />Councilmember Strommen stated she thinks there will be a lot of comments about the number of <br />units and location, which is not very useful input for the Council. She asked what is the <br />objective from the public input and stated she does not want to slip back into the oldway that is <br />not true to the Ramsey3 process. <br /> <br />Councilmember Jeffrey stated his agreement with Councilmember Strommen that any time you <br />put a "colored square" on the map by someone's property they will come out to talk about it. He <br />addressed the issue of transportation, noting if an area is developed there has to be transportation <br />to get residents to and from.the area. He stated he does not know how desirable the area of the <br />River bridge crossing would be for residential. He challenged the consultants to think about <br />what true development may be during a major River crossing or freeway interchange. <br />Councilmember Jeffrey stated he does not think residential in that type of area is realistic or <br />feasible. He stated his concern with the public comment process and the need to get people out <br />to talk about it and how it could impact their property. <br /> <br />Mr. Bilotta agreed they don't want a "wall" of people along a major River crossing or <br />interchange but nonresidential in this area is problematic because of access control. You will be <br />able to see the uses, but not get to them so a retail use would not survive. He explained they <br />identified multi-family in that location not because you want buildings built to back up to the <br />bridge, but because it would result in the creation of more open space areas. He noted that <br />townhomes can be built up to the edge of the property line, but a multi-story apartment will have <br />more open space around it. He stated they are trying to get away from identifying "colored <br />blocks" in areas and will want to give residents the basic parameter of units. Mr. Bilotta <br />commented that the antithesis process ofRamsey3 is the Metro Council's process that is heavily <br />focused on numbers and density. The primary information given to the Met Council is tables <br />and not necessarily what he thinks is the best option. He explained they are looking to identify <br />broader areas with general density ranges but not to pick it out by lot and block or dictating the <br />number of units per acre. Rather, they want to give the flexibility back to the process, like what <br />came out of Ramser . Mr. Bilotta noted, however, that there has to be some density ranges <br />included into the components. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated when he joined the Council, it was trying to justify more rooftops to <br />attract a big box and then hoping for the Town Center to be revitalized. He stated he is not as <br />concerned about Met Council's numbers because they didn't elect him and their number is not <br />necessarily what Ramsey needs. Councilmember Look stated the Met Council needs Ramsey to <br />absorb some of the population growth they will be dealing with at some point. Because Ramsey <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / August 12, 2008 <br />Page 6 of 10 <br />