2015-06-03_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, May 6, 2015 Page 5 would probably establish a better definition of that range in their future discussions of 196 their strategic goals, just completed and not yet adopted, in March of 2015. 197 Member Cunningham opined that, from her perspective, she found it a little disturbing 198 that price ranges for “move-up” housing may fall in a range that could potentially change 199 the entire character of the neighborhood. 200 In the spirit of that, Chair Boguszewski asked City Planner Paschke that this would be a 201 good discussion point to have with the City Council at the joint meeting with the 202 Commission, asking them to provide some specificity and numbers as part of a 203 directional statement for their advisory commissions in support of those City Council 204 initiatives. 205 Applicant RepresentativeMichael Muniz, Chief Manager, Premium Real Estate 206 Solution, LLC, 18140 Zane Street, #314;Elk River, MN 207 As requested by Member Cunningham, Mr. Muniz noted that “move-up” or any housing 208 value was always market driven, and noted that while values were increasing they were 209 still fluctuating.Given the current unknowns with development of the property and site 210 improvements, Mr. Muniz noted his difficulty in determining an exact top price point at this 211 time. 212 At the request of Member Cunningham to provide an estimate, Mr. Muniz stated that he 213 anticipated the top value would be less than $600,000 based on comparable values in 214 the neighborhood.In reviewing those comparables, Mr. Muniz noted that anexisting 215 home for sale in the neighborhood was currently valued at $600,000, but it had also been 216 for sale for some timeeven though it was in this area of higher-valued homes. 217 Member Bull asked the applicant if the Historical Society had been in touch yet regarding 218 getting photographic documentation of the existing structures and site. 219 Mr. Muniz responded that they had not yet done so, but given previously expressed 220 interest in the site and its historical value to them, stated that they were prepared towork 221 with the Society or neighbors across the street regarding relocation of the windmill. 222 However, Mr. Muniz stated he could not guarantee the possible relocation of the existing 223 structure given its condition. 224 In response to Member Bull’s observation of ladders against the existing structure, Mr. 225 Muniz advised that they were performing initial preparations for assessment by Ramsey 226 County to address any hazardous materials removal from the structure. 227 At the request of Member Daire as to which neighbors across the street had expressed 228 interest in the windmill, Mr. Muniz responded that he was unsure of which specific 229 neighbors, but they had been in the 320 to 324 County Road B West vicinity. 230 Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 7:14p.m.;no one spokefor or against. 231 Member Murphynoted the applicant’s open house meeting summary and list of names of 232 those attending; and since Member Daire had been in attendance asked him if he was 233 aware of anything from that discussion that may be of benefit to includein the proposed 234 motion. 235 Member Daire confirmed that he had attended; and commended the applicant in their 236 meeting summary and report of the discussion in a neutral and unbiased fashion. 237 Member Daire expressed his amazement in the objective summary provided by the 238 applicant, as well as their organization of that summary, expressing his appreciation for 239 their report. 240 Prior to a motion being put on the table, Chair Boguszewski asked Member Gitzen if he 241 proposed to add an additional condition as originally discussed related to the vacation 242 issue after staff’s response that it should not be necessary.Chair Boguszewski opined 243 that he found the easement and right-of-way process sufficient as conditioned in the staff 244 report’s recommended conditions. 245