Agenda - Council - 08/08/2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

development here and there and nobody knows the game rules. As for traffic, he said he doesn't want 400+ cars coming at his house. He reiterated that 151 is the staging area and parking area for activities related to the school. Wayne Olson — 5830 151 Lane N.W. — Again noted that 7 out of the 9 cases on tonight's agenda are amendments. Stated that he reviewed the Comprehensive Plan years ago when he considered moving into Ramsey; he was interested in where the City was going. In reviewing that, the City has violated all of the issues he looked up in the Comprehensive Plan: 1) the cul- de -sac in front of his house has doubled in length; 2) Don't have to worry about sewer and water for 15 years; sewer and water were installed in his neighborhood 10 years ago. If the desire is to have a city that is looked up to by residents and outsiders, then the plans have to be followed without making willy -nilly changes. The residents made big investments in their property to have what they have now and all of a sudden it's going to change. Mr. Stritesky talked about traffic; when there is a school event there is traffic 500 feet on both sides of 151S The road is too narrow to accommodate parking on both sides and 2 -way traffic without scraping door handles. There are a lot of children that walk to school in the neighborhood. Parents drive their kids to 151 and County Road #5, drop off their children, and turn around in his driveway or make a `u' turn to go back home again. At least 20 cars turn around in his driveway each day. He is very concerned that with the additional traffic, someone is going to get hurt. Especially in the winter time; the entrance to Skyline is on a downhill slope and it does get icy. Joel Anderson — 6080 151 Lane N.W. — Inquired as to what constitutes changing the zoning laws. Chairperson Nixt replied that the criteria for a land use or zoning change was established by City Council years ago. Council has also adopted an Interim Policy for Comprehensive Plan amendments until the Comprehensive Plan is updated. Land use is intended to go to the best and highest use. In this case, it could be argued that the best and highest use, because of the presence of two major traffic corridors, is townhomes. Land costs, yield in units, access to public facilities — all of those aspects drive land use changes. In this particular case, there are townhomes to the northwest; there is a developer interested in providing amenities that provide opportunity for higher density. In some cases it is appropriate and in some cases it is not. There are also geographic differences between the east and the west side of County Road #5. Jeff Liftin — Minnesota Skyline Partners — Stated that they have made lots of concessions and are proud of the plan they are presenting tonight. Density, traffic and a second access were issues and the developer feels that they have been addressed in this plan. The density is down to 5.2 units per acre and we may have to reduce it even more based on Staff's review letter. The traffic analysis revealed nothing out of the ordinary. The school has issues but they can't be made the developer's issues. A second access was important and it was obtained. Bruce Chalupsky— LHB — Explained that they are not big developers and this site in an opportunity for a signature development. Referred to the inquiry for a compelling reason to change the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he reviewed the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the Skyline development. Bruce presented exhibits (attached to these minutes as Exhibits A through F). Exhibit A addressed Skyline Pointe as it relates to general housing goals listed in the Planning Commission /July 10, 2006 Page 7 of 14