Agenda - Council - 02/13/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-32- development with high-density housing, currently established in the draft with at maximum ot' seven units per acre. The proposed gross density of the ACCAP project is 2.8 units per acre and the net density is 7.3 units per acre. The Planning Commissior~ conducted a public hc'at'in~ tm Novelnber 6, 2000, and four residents spoke in opposition to tile multi-l'amil;' housing i~ this area. The Planning Commission recommended approval o1' the proposed rczon~ng because it ~s consistent with the current draft of the Comprehensive Plan, which was developed with a lot of community input', and that proposal represents a n'mch lower density than that which would be allowed under the current zoning. Councilmember Connolly stated that she does some work with one of the group homes that could be involved with this project and for that reason she is abstaining from Cases 4, 5, and 6. Jeff Jolmson, ACCAP, stated that City staffhas made various COlnments in letters and reports, all of which ACCAP has agreed to comply with. Mayor Gamec stated that one concern he had is transportation. He inquired if there will be any other means of transportation for people to get to around. Mr. Jolmson replied that the housing will be classified as affordable housing not low-income housing. The minimum income restriction is $34,000 and there is no restriction after they move in. The people that will be moving into this development will be working families that will have cars and that is why the units have two car garages. They are also proposing a group home for developmentally disabled adults that will not drive, but the residents of Ramsey will receive first priority for the group home and all of the candidates for the group home all.are from Ramsey and have a very close cotmection to family members in the City that would be able to assist with transportation. Councilmember Zin~mennan stated that when a Council makes a decision to rezone property, it should be an overwhelming reason as to why to rezone the property. While he was out campaigning, he heard a substantial number of people in the Amber Ridge area opposing the rezoning, and for that reason he would not vote in favor of the rezoning. Councilmember A2~derson inquired as to what the legal interpretation is with one Councilmember abstaining from the vote. City Attorney Goodrich replied that a rezoning requires four affirmative votes to adopt. He also noted that under State Statute, a City's Comprehensive Plan must be similar to the land use and a city must be in compliance with their Comprehensive Plan. The City's cmTent Comprehensive Plan does not guide the property for the proposed zoning and would require a minor amendment to the cmTent Comprehensive Plan. Co~m'nunity Development Director Frolilc explained that the last time a land use map was completed was 1980, and that map slated the property as urban residential up to five units per City Council/November 28, 2000 Page 11 of 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I