Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A show of hands reflected the following: <br />Supportive of clustering: 1 <br />Opposed to clustering: about 97% <br />Supportive of 4 in 40: about 10% <br />Supportive of 2 ~ acre lots: about 80% <br />Supportive of something varied/ less than 4 in 40 but more than 1 per 2 Y2 acres: A few <br /> <br />Mr. Brian Howard, landowner at 8055 l73rd Avenue NW, stated he is in favor of 2 ~ acres. It is <br />a big extreme to go from 2 ~ to 10 acre lots. The property he is a partial owner of is surrounded <br />by 2 ~ acre lots except on one side. He stated there was the person that was here about putting <br />up townhomes that do not fit in among the single family homes, but he is being told he cannot <br />put 2 ~ acre lots in among 2 ~ acre lots. <br /> <br />Mr. Robert Tomazewski, 17220 Tiger Street NW, stated he can appreciate people's view on <br />being restricted by the 4 in 40 and how people should be able to develop their land within the <br />zoning limits the best way they can. He believes the 4 in 40 was probably originally developed <br />to limit until the southern area of the City could be developed and then the development would <br />continue northward. He is on a fairly small lot by comparison to some; he has 10 acres. He <br />would love to subdivide; he has a couple of sons ready for houses, but he would be happy to <br />forego the development of the property and leave it as it is in order to avoid a cluster <br />development anywhere in the City. He does not think cluster development is in keeping with the <br />whole flavor of this town. <br /> <br />Mr. John Enstrom, 8702 l8lst 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 l73rd 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 ~ <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 ofland on the west <br />side of Hunter Ridge. They purchased this property on the basis that it would be 2 ~ 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 ~ acre lots. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/January 4, 2007 <br />Page 22 of 35 <br />