Laserfiche WebLink
M1r~urEs <br />City Council <br />February 11, 1981 <br />Fahey suggested that the matter be tabled until the meeting scheduled <br />on March 4, to consider the zoning of the whole area. Fahey also felt <br />something should be put in the City's ordinance so that the Council <br />could designate an area a PUD without a developer`s agreement, <br />Mrs. Scalze suggested that the City have an appraiser look at the area <br />to try to determine what the amount of damages would be should the City <br />down-zone the property. Scalze also asked the Attorney if someone <br />loses value to their property, does the City just wait to be sued, <br />The Attorney stated that the City should not wait to be sued, but should <br />try to negotiate the loss of value with the property owner. <br />fahey stateci that he felt the principle concern was for owner-occupied <br />housing and that the City would have a good argument for R-2 zoning. <br />Fahey stated that an appraiser should look at this and give the City <br />an opinion on the devaluation. <br />Mayor Hanson stated that he has mixed emotions on the subject. The Metro <br />Council has asked the City to upgrade its position on low income housing. <br />Flanson asked if the City down zones this property if it would make a strong <br />argument for the remaining R-3 property in the City to force the City to <br />qualify its actions with the Metro Council. Hanson stated that he would <br />not want to put the Schrier property in a better position. <br />Mr. Scott Bjerko stated that he was in the real estate business and that <br />in Little Canada residential property is more valuable than commercial <br />property. <br />Mr. Fiechert asked how many lots of single family housing the Waite <br />property could consist of. Mr. Waite commented that there could be <br />six lotsof single family housing or that he could have six lots with <br />duplexes. Mr. Waite also stated that he owned the property for 3 to 4 <br />years. <br />Mr. Fiechert st~ted that he could live with duplexes on the Waite property. <br />R, member of the audience reminded the Council that he had only considered <br />the devaluation to the blaite property, but had not considered the <br />devaluation that could be caused to surrounding properties. <br />Jackie aranton of Stark Street stated that she was opposed to the 4-plexes <br />and duplexes. This type of housing would attract families with children <br />and the housing would be too close to the railroad tracks. Branton a7so <br />stated that rental property has the tendency to deteriorate. <br />Mr. Forsberg stated that he was opposed to any more multiple family housing <br />in Little Canada. Forsberg stated that he ti~ould support the homeowners <br />of the area. Forsberg did inform the audience that if the Council down- <br />zones the property, it will cost the City some money and Little Canada <br />residents in other areas will be against paying these costs, Forsberg said he <br />felt that the PUD was an alternative to paying these types of damages. <br />Mr. Waite reminded the Council that he has signatures from 25 homeowners <br />in Canabury who are not opposed to the development. Also, Parkview Realty <br />who owns the property north of the Waite property is not opposed. <br />Page -4- <br />