My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 08/22/2017
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2017
>
Agenda - Council - 08/22/2017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 3:37:36 PM
Creation date
8/17/2017 6:29:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
08/22/2017
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
421
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Paxmar Recommendations for City Support of Northfork Meadows Addition <br />The following talking points were provided by the Developer of Northfork Meadows (Paxmar) as <br />suggestions for supporting a change to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density <br />Residential to Medium Density Residential. <br />Please note that City Staff does not necessary support nor endorse each of these items. City Staff is <br />avoiding responding to each of these talking points to avoid a loop of point/counter-point. <br />Reasons city should consider approval: <br /> <br />1.Have a developer who is willing to pay almost 60% up front for overall projected costs of Puma <br /> <br />extension (total estimated costs puma street extension $1.4 million- developer portion <br />$800,000). \[Staff note: this cost-share agreement has not been reviewed by the City Council. It <br />would still obligate the City to certain future expenses.\] <br />2.Plan increases density, which will increase long-term tax revenue. <br /> <br />3.Not feasible to develop under straight \[Low Density Residential/R-1 Residential District\]. <br /> <br />4.Plan fits to area- Not a lot of amenities to area and is basic flat field located next to business <br /> <br />park to south, multi- family to west, busy street to north and single family to east. <br />5.Would increase rooftops to attract commercial/business users in new business park and existing <br /> <br />COR. <br />6.Give community more choices on housing stock for area and not limit to \[one\] builder. <br /> <br />7.Decrease city exposure of failure to \[recoup\] fees by allowing multiple builders/product being <br /> <br />built. <br />8.Finishes entire area with least amount of prolonged roads under construction. <br /> <br />9.- lots of housing options <br /> <br />for workforce. <br />10.Would give city a surge of cash with lots of \[fees\], \[Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) and \[Water <br /> <br />Availability Charge (WAC)\] fees being paid. \[Staff note: the goal for the City is not to maximize <br />collection of fees. Fees are being collected to offset impacts of development and to pay for <br />infrastructure needed to serve the proposed development. Staff would recommend that this not <br />be a finding to support the request.\] <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.