Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Watson concreted. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer stated the concept does not make sense to him. His argument has been <br />economic, in that by doing this the eventual costs of something like this have not been <br />adequately addressed. He explained in his work he builds models of policy decisions, and when <br />he ran the numbers on Ramsey it shows a graph that slo.wly goes up. The City is being well run <br />now, but as soon as there is a major project, such as CR 116, Highway 47, or anything else that <br />the development tbrces, the graph goes off the end. This would need to be taken out of-the <br />people in the City in a tax increase .unless they can figure out another way to do it. He cannot <br />vote lbr something that will ask existing residents of this City to pay higher taxes to subsidize <br />more development. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked if the denial of the ordinance is conditional or absolute to the <br />commissioners. <br /> <br />Commissioners Watson, Van Scoy and Brauer responded their denials would be absolute. <br />Commissioner Jeffrey responded his denial would be conditional. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt withdrew his motion. <br /> <br />Motion by Chairperson Nixt, seconded by Commissioner Van Scoy, to recommend that the City <br />Council deny the adoption of the ordinance to amend Chapter 9 (Zoning and Subdivision of <br />Land) of thc Ramsey City Code to amend development standards in the R-1 Residential District <br />as presented. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Chairperson Nixt indicated the context of his first motion should be <br />considered as his observations about the reason for the ordinance being deficient. Commissioner <br />JelTrey stated the infi'astructure of Highways 47, 5 and 10 all need to be looked at in its entirety. <br />Development will happen and the City needs to get ahead of the curve. The ordinance has a lot <br />of good things, but they need to think through some of these things. He asked how this action <br />will affect the moratorium. Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon replied there <br />is a possibility of extending the moratorium. He is glad the' Commission is making a <br />recommendation because he thinks they need to respect the moratorium and have a <br />recommendation fbr the Council. Commissioner Brauer stated he agrees with Chairperson Nixt <br />in the issues he pointed out about the existing, ordinance. He assumes those of them opposed to <br />the ordinance in any form are in the minority, and he thinks the issues Chairperson Nixt brought <br />up are valid I.br the ordinance if it does go through. Chairperson Nixt noted he will be 'voting <br />against the motion. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Commissioners Van Scoy, Brauer and Watson, Voting no: <br />Chairperson Nixt and Commissioner Jeffrey. Absent: Commissioners Johnson and Shepherd. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Commissioner Watson stated he thinks the ordinance is in violation of the <br />comprehensive plan. He thinks it takes away from diversified housing in the future. They have <br />densities in the City that are already too dense and this ordinance will just compound that in the <br />l"uturc. Commissioner Jeffrey indicated he agrees with the concerns Chairperson Nixt raised on a <br />lot of thc issues. I-le thinks the ordinance gives a chance to look at this thoughtfully and plan <br /> <br />Planning Commission/August 5, 2004 <br /> Page 39 of 40 <br /> <br /> <br />