Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. John Enstrom, 8702 1818t Avenue NW, stated tonight they just experienced one individual <br />that wanted to plot 1.9 acres surrounded by nice homes. They should think of this as a cluster <br />development ten years from now where 30 homes were allowed in a small area and there are 60 <br />acres that are now vacant. He asked how they will come back and develop this other land unless <br />it is all ghost platted. He stated every parcel should be developed to its maximum potential at <br />that time that is workable. Pretty soon 10 years from now they will change the lot sizes and bring <br />City sewer and water in. He questioned who will want to put a new home next to an old home; <br />they want the area all to look the same. He stated the Planning Commission should plan for <br />future development. <br /> <br />Mr. Joel Nelson, 9350 173rd Avenue NW, stated he can walk out his back door and see an Elk <br />River water tower. He does not think the line of south and north Ramsey has anything to do with <br />this. Ramsey used to be out on the edge, but now cities surround them. He is in favor of the 2 Y2 <br />acre lots; it gives the flavor of a little space, not necessarily an urban development with 18 <br />houses on 2 acres. They cannot look at this on the basis of north and south; each piece of <br />property needs to be determined based on where it is. <br /> <br />Ms. Beth Specht, 874 Mason Avenue NW, stated she owns a 40 acre piece of land on the west <br />side of Hunter Ridge. They purchased this property on the basis that it would be 2 Y2 acre lots <br />and are making payments on that basis. If lot sizes are changed to 1 in 10 they may lose 16 lots; <br />at $70,000 per lot this comes to around $840,000. She asked if their property taxes will be <br />reduced if this is changed to one lot per 10 acres, as she feels they are paying property taxes <br />based on 2 Y2 acre lots. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt replied the County would control the property value and change the assessed <br />property tax value. The ability to subdivide is one element of how the County would value <br />property; it is possible that it would be reduced. <br /> <br />Ms. Specht asked if the Commission would consider grandfathering people in that have land <br />currently zoned for 2 Y2 acre lots. She would like it noted that she would like her property to <br />remain as 2 Y2 acre lots. <br /> <br />Mr. Kurt Bartges, 6314 172nd Lane NW, stated he owns two acres. It seems this started with the <br />cluster ordinance and the pendulum has gone from clustering or high density towards the 4 in 40. <br />The City Council and Planning Commission are here to serve the public and the residents of the <br />village, and the show of hands shows that people are not interested in clustering. With the 4 in <br />40 people cannot realize their retirement plans. The 2 Y2 to 6 acre lots is a respectable <br />consideration. The other thing to consider as that part of the Comprehensive Plan is the <br />infrastructure. Highways 47 and 5 are basically two bituminous horse paths that are stacked up <br />every morning with people trying to get south. They need to look at all of these ingredients in the <br />sour recipe at the moment, and what is in the best interest of meeting the needs of the residents, <br />as well as the future needs of the village. The Commission cannot look at every lot on a lot by <br />lot basis; that is micromanaging, but if they look at larger tracts and areas that support or go <br />against the infrastructure they can make good decisions that will last 10 to 15 years. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/January 4, 2007 <br />Page 23 of 36 <br /> <br />P23 <br />