Agenda - Council - 03/12/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I ! I I I I I I I Steve of 14700 Potassium Street NW, Ramsey, stated that he was against the proposed land use change for parcel #10. He explained that he purchased his home in November 2001 and did some homework prior to making that purchase. He called the City and asked for the zoning for the field behind them and was told nothing was occurring. He Stated that he was distressed when he saw the proposed Comprehensive Plan changes in the Ramsey Resident after that time. He stated that he was very against the change. Resident stated that at a previous City Council meeting there was some discussion that the residents living around the proposed amendment sites would receive some type of notification about the meeting, which did no happen. He stated that he would like to be better notified about any changes about the property. Andy Kelly, 6171 145th Lane NW, Ramsey, stated that he understands that if it wasn't for development he would not be'in his house or Ramsey and is happy livingin Ramsey, but would prefer that parcel # ! 0 remain low density residential. Tom Kempfer, 6211 152nd Ave, Fox Knoll Subdivision north side of parcel #10, stated that he recognizes that the City has an obligation to provide affordable housing, but a minimum house value of $200,000 does not provide for affordable hoUsing and is not against that. But there is an attempt to provide a single zone of single family housing and then slip medium density homes into the single-family areas and he did not tkink that was a good way to develop a Comprehensive Plan. Beyond that twice the residents have spoken regarding property #10. It was clear two years ago that they were opposed and it is still the same. How many more times do the residents have to speak. Ms. Bertzyk stated that when they take into consideration as to what happens in an area the assumption is there are more kids and more traffic, but from studies there is not a large increase because there are a lot of empty nesters or single family occupying those units. Mr. Ragor stated that another issue that has not been addressed is that cluster homes in an area, where there are low-density homeS totally surrounding site #10, will affect their property value. He felt that was another very important issue that needed to be considered and was another reason he was opposed to the land use change. . Ms. Bertzyk disagreed. She explained that when the Pulte development was being proposed she spoke with three Realtors and was told that the development would improve their value. John Bertyk, 6601 146th Avenue NW, Ramsey, stated that there were 14 issues on the land use map to be considered and everyone was focusing on parcel #10. He stated that he was involved in attempting to get the Pulte plan approved especially after the threat of drug rehab houses on the site. Pulte was going to save 80 percent of the trees, which would increase the property values by a minimum of 20 percent. Where there were empty spots there were going to be berms. The home values would have started at $170,000 and the development would have included trails, which would have been maintained by Pulte at no cost to the City. They were Planning Commission Joint Meeting/January 24, 2002 Page 9 of 15 -50-