Agenda - Council - 11/28/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chairperson Nixt noted that the development is ·being proposed at a density of 2.8 un/ts and the land could be developed at 3.3 units per acre if it were a single family developmei~L,~' Commissioner Johnson noted that' the draft Comprehensive Plan has identified,~i"!:,f:~perty as h/gh density residential which would allow for a development of up to seven Commissioner Koclscak mqmred ~fthe umts would be subm&zed housmg:~::~'~!~v, "~j:z~. Mr. Johnson replied that the un/ts are considered affordable hous!n:~i}'~k~,pla*"i~kh that a fami~;~;; :.';;!?,~. of four would qualify, for the housing if they have a salary of $3-4-¢0f30 a~ally and the monthly rent would range from $600 to $800 a month plus utilit/es. N~3re than ;2~ percent of the un/ts can be used for very low mcome fam/hes, so a max~mu/n;'~'of severLfarmlies could be lower income status. ' ~:~:~??'" Commissioner Kociscak inquu'ed if the residents who az~;;objecthJg t6.: the development understand that there will only be 28 units on the site. '~!~;~i~ii~~' Mr. West replied yes, explaining that ge_ objects to the development':~ause h~:Oved from St. Louis Park where thee is a lot of::~r6~iddzed'housing and would r~2~;g single family housing because people have pride ~ c~wner~b_ip~:~¢, Mr. Ross stated that ACCAP may have;~o, rked w~th .ffid:¢:r~Kl~nts en::the west side of T.H. ~47, but he was not made aware of any comm¢~cafions ~::}eside~:!:d'h::~e east side ofT.H. ~q-7. Mr. Johnson clar/fied~,l:hat there wiI1 be 31 ~'7~:~the site· ............ . 485:? ..... Karen Tsch.~perhn, 1 Z0~:;!_.Erkium Street :~,,~g_arnsey, stated that .she did not sig'n any a~eementi~f~i ACCAP reg~aing the develo~/r/'~;?::'ghe also pointed out that a majority of the prope~ii-S::Jetland and is n~5.~i:~evelopable. Sh'~7!~ed that she was opposed to the rezon/ng. She expl~6a th~'~he purchaS~a~Tkez home six.y~' ago and came to City Hail to inquire as to what would be dor~i~th thO6}'~:'~a:i~!~'~hot informed about the density change. ' ~:~.%Kath~een Dock, 1478~ ~um Street, stated that the portion of the property that is already zoned .~i~:i!~:,;'~'if:-.~is; D~_proteoted:~E~a¢:f'~ her vehfioatio~ with the St. Paul DNX o~ce, and should not be consiaE';~,~as pad of':~'~':a':~Elopment. She stated that the entire are~ is residential family and f~}~,:should no£~nge. To place an R-3 in the middle orR-1 development does not seem to be g¢~z plann/ng'. She stated, that she did not think the City wants to have "hodge podge" zoning i}WtJich already exists in the City and would not think they would want to continue that pattern. S~;~'&uggested leaving the property zoned R-1 to keep it consistent with what people *'~!!!:~. :see along T.~i~? and C.R. #5. - .... Ch~erk,'ph':~ Nixt stated that the draft Comprehensive Plan has identified most of the und'e~el~Ped property along T.H. ~47 as high density development. -138- Planning Commission/November 6, 2000 Page 15 of 23