Minutes - Council - 02/11/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

lower than the maximum density allowed is not true. In Apple Ridge, it is proposed at 20% less than the maximum density. We could put 180 units in there but we are proposing 144. (60 acres with a maximum of 34 units per acre) That's 36 units less than the maximum. The proposal was presented to the Planning Commission and there is no case where five residents were adjacent to a property line. That's an inaccurate statement. I have not asked our legal counsel to look at the issue of establishing priority of a concept plan but I will. We want to work with the residents there. We have had neighborhood meetings and we have made some significant changes. We are trying to be sensitive to the people in that adjacent neighborhood. Mayor Gamec agreed that the developer did have an open meeting with the residents and he felt the residents appreciated that fact. He felt there could be no action on this issue this evening but to mm it over to the City Attorney for more review. Mr. Hendriksen stated if there are not five lots adjacent an existing lot, he stands corrected. He added that Mr. Peterson is ignoring the fact that you must take roads and right-of-ways out of that gross number of acres. It appears that Apple Ridge is platted close to the maximum density. I will stand by my statement that no developer brings the maximum density down. Wayne Johnson, commercial investor and Real Estate Broker stated he is involved in this transaction (Apple Ridge) - in marketing that property. He stated he would like to challenge Mr. Hendriksen on a couple of points he made. The traffic generated from this project will not egress down one street - there are three outlets from this project. He stated he is really puzzled how the City can grow from one house per 40 acres to some higher density without ever having a higher density be approved next door to a lower density. It's frightening for a lot of people to have new projects come into the neighborhood but, based on his experience with Good Value Homes, the development will be an asset to the community. Motion by Councilmember Haas Steffen and seconded by Councilmember Beyer that at the next City Council meeting, staff should come back with the procedure we need to review the comprehensive plan, separate from any kind of development. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Haas Steffen, Beyer, Beahen and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. Gerald Tollefson - 6005 - 157th Lane NW, Ramsey, - in answer to why didn't the residents come forward and make noise when the MUSA was changed is because the Ramsey Resident didn't have anything in it about that and some people cannot afford the paper that this type of thing is in. He added that he did not see three different exits out the neighborhood - that's a lie. Councilmember Zimmerman stated he would suggest that the City Council get involved in the sketch plan so the developer does not spend a lot of money before this is resolved. Zoning Administrator Frolik stated that the developer had already talked to her about bringing the sketch plan to the City Council even though it does not have to be. MAYOR/COUNCIL INPUT 1) Information Relating to Tax Increase with Property Value Increase Councilmember Haas Steffen noted the information received relating to the increase in property valuation with City sewer and water. She wanted to know what the increase in taxes would be. Mr. Schroeder stated that if you have $14,000 in lot value, the tax dollar (if your home is valued over $72,000) would be at the 2% level or about $300 per year increase in taxes. City Council/February 11, 1997 Page 13 of 14