Agenda - Council - 02/26/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Steve of 14700 Potassium Street NW, Ramsey, stated that he was against the proposed chan~e for parcel #10. He explained that he purchased his home in November some homework prior to making that purchase. He called the City and asked for,~:':i~5~ng the field behind them and was told nothing was occurring. He stated that he wasd!~pd when he saw the proposed Comprehensive Plan changes in the Ramsey Resident aff~'i'{hat'~e. He stated that he was very against the change. ~'~ '%~i!~::~ Resident stated that at a previous City Council meeting there was~!'~some'~"~ssion that residents living around the proposed amendment sites would rece~k~!~me ty~?;f notification'~iJ!~ about the meeting, which did no happen. He stated that he wout~&tSke t6~:be better notified about any changes about the property. Andy Kelly, 6171 145~" Lane NW, Ramsey, stated :~e underst'~S ~that if it wasn't for development he would not be in his house or RamseY?hd: {~:i ~ha~ppY li~,:in:~sey, but Would prefer that parcel #10 remain low density residential. Tom Kempfer, 6211 152~" Ave, Fox Knoll Subdivision north si~i~:~:arcel #Ip~,stated that he recognizes that the City has an obligation to provide affordable hous~g;.:but .~.imm~mum house value of $200,000 does not provide.fo{iiffo~ble housing and is not agii~},~a't}~' But there is an attempt to provide a single zone otTkingi'~' farni~housing and then slip~:m'~diUm density homes into the single-family areas,::mid?h~':did no~">~nk!~',th,at, was a gb~ way to develop a Comprehensive Plan. Beyond'~that twice!the residentS~:~:a¢~¢~p0ke~!:regarding property #I 0. It was clear v,vo years ago that they were OpPosed anc{::~s still th&same. How many more times do the residents have to speak. .:.s:::;,:,, Ms. Bertzyk staf~I;th,~ ~hen they take in~6~'onsideration as to what happens in an area the assumption is:~i-e are re°mElds and more ~c,~t from studies there is not a large increase because ther~e~e a lot of em~6d nesters or singr-~i~ occupying those units. Mr. R:agor Stated that ano~er msue that has-:not been addressed ~s that cluster homes m an area, where there a~¢:~}~rde:nsi~:~6rn'e~:i ounding site #10, will affect their property value. He felt that was':~r very importa~'~'issue that needed to be considered and was another ~'~"v~::':~'' °S:~i~o the lar}~.~~ use change. _~:~7~x,':.;r asomb_e was opp Ms. Be~ disagreed. Sh¢!eX:p['ained that when the Pulte development was being proposed she spoke with ~e'e Realtors.~ff'was told that the development would improve their value. John Berryk, 6~60'1 146~ Avenue NS,V, Ramsey, stated that there were 14 issues on the land use map to be condittered and everyone was focusing on parcel #!0. He stated that he was involved ':'5-~, in attempting~?get the Pulte plan approved especially after the threat of drug rehab houses on :":~:: ~e, . site. ?bite was going to save 80 percent of the trees, which would increase the property '¢~[~es ~b~?a"min/mum of 20 percent. Where there were empty spots there were =oln= to be bermS:,i?The home values would have started at $170,000 and the development would have inCt.'nded trails, which would have been maintained by Pulte at no cost to the City. They were -242- Planning Commission Joint Meetin~January 24, 2002 Page 9 of 15