Minutes - Council - 03/28/2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

She supports the overall concept of the goal to try to reach orderly development. However, it bothers her that cluster ordinance by definition means the preservation of permanent open space is involved, and she feels they have missed part of that. It causes confusion about what this means to take a term that has common use and apply it differently. They need to go back and put that open space piece into this ordinance. Councilmember Cook stated he agrees that this ordinance needs more work, and that the Council did discuss greenway and open space. This is the fight tool and it protects more than open space and land; it also protects the future tax base and prevents residents from higher taxes. He thinks they need to look at this ordinance better; it is unfortunate there are developers involved in this that were put in a bad situation. On the other side of this, most of the residents do not understand the clustering ordinance as the Council does. The only way he would go forward with this moratorium is if a program is worked out that gets out information to the residents regarding the ordinance and how it works for everyone. Part of this is not the cluster ordinance being wrong in every case, but the information not being out there as to what it really does. Councilmember Strommen commented not only should the education process involve the City providing information, but the City should receive information as well. This is a significant ordinance that will guide development, and there needs to be a dialogue. Councilmember Cook stated there is a lot of misinformation out there, and some people do not understand the overall benefit of the cluster ordinance to the residents, and they also do not have the information the Council has. It tends to dig deep into him when someone thinks he is padding his or someone else's pocket. This cluster ordinance was brought forward because it was a good decision for the City; it needs tweaking, but the overall plan has merit. Councilmember Jeffrey noted the burden of the education and communication plan comes on the City to determine how to communicate, but the citizens also need to be active. The motion on the floor was amended as follows: Motion by Councilmember Elvig, seconded by Councilmember Strommen, to adopt Resolution //06-03-101 commissioning further study of the rural developing area and cluster ordinance within the City of Ramsey, Anoka County, Minnesota, with the following language to be added to the proposed resolution: "In addition, staff is directed to provide ample public meetings and work sessions in order to afford citizens and developers an opportunity for input and education in the review of the ordinance." Further discussion: Coancilmember Strommen commented the City of Maple Grove has a growth management plan to ensure orderly development. The plan entails a point system based on a range of things in relation to general community goals. She suggested the Council review the plan to determine if it could be incorporated into this cluster ordinance. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Elvig, Strommen, Cook, Jeffrey, Olson, and Pearson. Voting No: None. City Attorney Goodrich provided an overview of the ordinance establishing a moratorium on the development of certain parcels of land within the City of Ramsey, Anoka County, Minnesota. He advised the Council may want to discuss the area to be included in the moratorium. The proposed ordinance includes specifically the R-1 Residential - Rural Developing District. City Council / March 28, 2006 Page 21 of 31