Agenda - Council - 02/08/2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Commissioner Watson concurred. Commissioner Brauer~stated the.concept does not make sense to him. His argument has been economic, in that bY doing this :the eventual costs of something like this have not been adequately addressed. :He explained:in his wOrk he builds models of policy decisions, and when he ran the numbers on Ramsey it sh°,ws a graph that slOwly goes up. The City is being well run now, but as soon as there is a majoripr0je;ct, such as CR 1 t6, Highway 47, or anything else that the development forces, the graph goes off the end. This would ,need to be taken out of the people in the City in k tax increase Unless they.can figure out another way to do it. He cannot vote for something that will ask 'existing iresidents of this City to pay higher taxes to subsidize more development. : asked if the 'denial of the ordinance is conditional or absolute to the Chairperson Nixt commissioners. Commissioners Watson, Van Scoy and BraUer responded their denials would be absolute. Commissioner Jeffrey responded his denial woUld be conditional. Chairperson Nixt withdrew his motion~ Motion by Chairperson Nixt, Seconded bYCommissioner Van Scoy, to recommend that the City Council deny the adoption of the ordinance t© amend Chapter 9 (Zoning and Subdivision of Land) of the Ramsey City Code to amend, development standards in the R-1 Residential District as presented. Further Discussion: ChairperSon Nixt indicated the context of his first motion should be considered as his observations about ihe reason for the ordinance being deficient. Commissioner Jeffrey stated the infrastructure of HighwaYs 47, 5 and 10 all need to be looked at in its entirety. Development will happen and the City needs to get ahead of the curve. The ordinance has a lot of good things, but they need to:think through some of these things. He asked how this action' will affect the moratori',Um. AssiStantlCommunity Development Director Trudgeon replied there is a possibility of extending the moratOdurn. He is glad the Commission is making a recommendation because he think,s they need to respect the moratorium and have a recommendation for the Council. Commissioner Brauer stated he agrees with Chairperson Nixt in the issues he pointed out about theiexisting ordinance. He assumes those of them opposed to .the ordinance in any form are in: the minoritY, and he thinks the issues Chairperson Nixt brought up are valid for the ordinance if it does go thrOUgh. Chairperson' Nixt noted he will be voting against the motion. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Commissioners Van .Scoy, Brauer and 'Watson. Voting no: Chairperson Nixt and C6mmissioner Jeffrey, Absent: Commissioners Johnson and Shepherd. Further Discussion: Commissioner Wats°n stat&d he thinks the Ordinance is in violation of the comprehensive plan. He thinks it!take:.s away from diversified housing in the future. They have. densities in the City that are alrea~ty tob dense and this ordinance will just compound that in the future. Commissioner Jeffrey indicated he agrees with the concerns Chairperson Nixt raised on a lot of the issues. He thinks the ordinance gives a chance to look at this thoughtfully and plan Plan~inglCommissiOn/August 5, 2004 page 39 of 40 7 ~ ~;, i ~ - ?-i ;; ~ ~ it: