Agenda - Council - 01/10/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I I III. 3. Stopli~. hts and wider existing stree :s would be necessary. C. Through st:-eet cannot be constructed without' causing a traffic problem on Highway 5 or Highway 47. D. The concentration of low cost multi-family dwellings may not be attractive at the entrance to our City. Additional Comments A. Flintwood I residents were under the impression that Flintwood II would be developed similar to Flintwood I (i.e. 1 acre lots). 1. Many present Flintwood I residents would not have purchased homes there if the subject proposal was planned. B. Flintwood II and development south of Hwy. 116 in Anoka should be done in harmony with the present Flintwood I residential area. 1. Anoka should be persuaded if necessary to be a good neighbor. 2. New development should not be a hardship for Ramsey residents. C. The City Council is urged to consider the wishes of its present residents in making its development plans. Alternatives in order of cecreasing desirability by Flintwood I residents. A. Develop similar to Flintwood I (i.e. 1 acre lots). B. Develop with single family homes on 1/2 acre lots. If even further population density is required, develop with single family homes adjacent to Flintwood I and a small number of multi-family homes further east. D. In all of the above cases: All commercial property along ~twy. 47. 2. Half and one acre lots bordering 21intwood I with homes of equal or greater value. 3. No dixect or indirect assessments to Flintwood I caused by Flintwood II (new ~evelopment can and should 1 may its own way). e high speed through traffic. (Having an MSA road so close to Flint~-ood I forces developers to 5ocate 8-unit buildings and comme] cial properties adjacent to Flintwood I. Will the incr(~ased tax valuation of Flint~ood II pay for the extra costs Of: A. Utilities Si g ~ :,~,,~ tuber 29, 19 ~3 -~"-~ k~aring Yarc ~ of 8