12/06/83 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I. 3. Stoplights and wider existing streets would be necessary. I I C. Through street 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. I III. Additional Comments I I 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. I B. Flintwood II and development south of Hwy. 116 in Anoka should be done in harmony with the present Flintwood I residential area. I I 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. I IV. Alternatives in order of cecreasing desirability by Flintwood I residents. A. Develop similar to Flintwood I (i.e. 1 acre lots). I B. Develop with single family homes on 1/2 acre lots. I C. 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. I D. In all of the above cases: L All commercial property along Hwy. 47. I 2. Half and one acre lots bordering Flintwood I with homes of equal or greater value. I 3. No direct or indirect assessments to Flintwood I caused by Flintwood II (new development can and should pay its own way) . I I I 4. No high speed through traffic. (Having an MSA road so close to Flintwood I forces developers to locate 8-unit buildings and commercial properties adj'acent to Flintwood I. V. Will the increased tax valuation of Flintwood II pay for the extra costs Of: A. Utilities I c. 2/1-;:)vernbe.r L~', l-u~lic Hearing paqe 3 of 8