Laserfiche WebLink
-148- <br /> <br />development with high-density housing, currently established in the draft with a maximum of <br />seven units per acre. The proposed gross density of the ACCAP project is 2.8 units per acre and <br />the net density is 7.3 units per acre. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on <br />November 6, 2000, and four residents spoke in opposition to the multi-family housing in this <br />area. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed rezoning because it is <br />consistent with the current draR of the Comprehensive Plan, which was developed with a lot of <br />community input; and that proposal represents a much lower density than that which would be <br />allowed under the current zoning. <br /> <br />Councilmember Connolly stated that she does some work with one of the go. up homes that could <br />be involved with this project and for that reason she is abstaining from Cases 4, 5, and 6. <br /> <br />Jeff Johnson, ACCAP, stated that City staff has made various comments in letters and reports, all <br />of which ACCAP has agreed to comply, with. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that one concern he had is transportation. I-Ie inquired if there will be any <br />other means of transportation for people to get to around. <br /> <br />Nh'. Johnson replied that the housing will be classified as affordable housing not iow-income <br />housing. The minimum income restriction is $34,000 and there is no restriction afl:er they move <br />in. The people that will be moving into this development will be w~rlcing families that will have <br />cars and that is why the units have two car garages. They are also proposing a group home for <br />developmentally disabled adults that will not drive, but the residents of Ramsey will receive first <br />priority for the group home and all of the candidates for the group home all are from Ramsey and <br />have a very close connection to family members in the City that would be able to assist with <br />transportation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated that when a Council makes a decision to rezone property, it <br />should be an overwhelming reason as to why to rezone the property. YVhile he was out <br />campaigning, he heard a substantial number of people in the Amber Ridge' area opposing the <br />rezoning, and for that reason he would not vote in favor of the rezoning. <br /> <br />Councilmember Anderson inquired as to what the legal interpretation is with one <br />Councilmernber abstaining from the vote. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied flzat a rezoning requires four affirmative votes to adopt. He also <br />noted that under State Statute, a City's Comprehensive Plan must be similar to the land use and a <br />city must be in compliance with their Comprehensive Plan. The City's current Comprehensive <br />Plan does not guide the property for the proposed zoning' and would require a minor amendment <br />to the current Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik explained that the last time a land use map was <br />completed was 1980, and that map slated the property as urban residential up to five units per <br /> <br />City Council/November 28, 2000 <br /> Page 11 of 21 <br /> <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> 1 <br /> I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! <br />I <br />I <br />! <br />i <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />