Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/10/2015

Home

Community Development Director Gladhill stated this could be a good addition to the questions for the other Boards. It would be helpful to solicit input as to what they think the issues have been and ask if this is the right direction aesthetically. Councilmember LeTourneau went back to the point of the view shed for those homeowners that are now looking at retail buildings. He asked if the original aesthetics are in place, or if they should be revisited. He noted the diameter of the trees was changed, and other designs were left out due to cost. He questioned if design standards have changed. Board Member Lewis posed the question of which is faster — bringing in big box retailing, or housing. Community Development Director Gladhill stated this all originated from a joint meeting. One of the questions from that meeting was what is the goal for that development. Sometimes it feels like there are multiple goals. He asked if the development should happen quickly so it can get on the tax role, or if it is consensus to wait for the long term vision to come. Board Member Bentz commented the issue is with the interchange. People do not like using frontage roads because they are difficult to use. The interchange does not seem welcoming right now. Ramsey has resources to market. If Ramsey wants to attract businesses, we need to look at parking issues when there are events, maybe looking at a water park or other features geared toward families. He said he doesn't see a big box store doing much of anything. Community Development Director Gladhill explained the Planning Commission is not suggesting the original plan be followed. The Commission acknowledged that was aggressive for the market that is Ramsey. The Commission would like to put together a plan that matches the goals. He said he has hopefully captured some of the additional topics needed for that survey. Each Board has come up with more questions along the way. He said Staff recommends the City Council adopt this document, with the understanding that it will be revised as it goes through the different Boards and Agencies. Motion by Board Member Lewis and seconded by Board Member Valentine to recommend that the City Council adopt the attached Comparison Document for The COR, including the revisions and questions suggested at this meeting. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Stodola, Board Member Lewis, Valentine, Bentz, and Covart. Voting No: None. Absent: Board Members Bernard, and Hiatt.