Laserfiche WebLink
May 2. 1994 <br /> <br />RE: letter April 28,1994 <br /> <br />The City of Ramsey, City Staff, City Council <br /> <br />This is fo address the issue of the Proposed alignment of Sunwood Drive, os the proposed shift in <br />alignment fo the south from the designated MSA alignment on the Cities transpodation plan is the <br />reason thai Item 5 is so negative to this Minor Subdivision. <br /> <br />The fact is that this Minor Subdivision, would not be laking place if the shift in alignment was not taking <br />place. This subdivision would take place in a timely fashion, with all the streets in place and MUSA <br />extensions enacted, if the alignment slayed where the cities transpodalion plan shows it through this <br />properly. <br /> <br />This subdivision of this properly took shape on March 19, 1992, when I opened lhe negotiations fo <br />pumhase lhe properly from Wasle Management INC. The lolal of 4 lots on the east 135 feel of the <br />properly was envisioned and negotiations to have restrictions that were proposed on the properly, to <br />allow development on the east 135 feel became pad of the legal record of the properly. <br /> <br />I realize that all lhe city services have to be in place before any building permits will be issued for the <br />proposed 2 urban size lots. This is an agreeable restriction. There is an approved preliminary plat in the <br />cities records that indicate lhis would take place, if the Sunwood Drive (I.e..) Sunfish Lake Drive, did not <br />get realigned. <br /> <br />If the Proposed alignment of Sunwood Drive comes to pass the city is enacling a faking of my properly, <br />and the value of this subdivision to me is in excess of $250,000.00. The cily proposes lo pay <br />approximalely $15,000.00 based on the proposed area and proposed $10,000.00 per acre acquisition <br />costs for the right-of-way. It has also been proposed to the city lhat the existing 66 foot easement would <br />be free, and fha addilional 14 feet could be negotiated lo some of the conslrucfion methods used. <br /> <br />It also appears thai this realignment is for the sole benefit of lhe developer of Chestnut Hills and Cedar <br />Hills, as these subdivisions are what instigated the placemenl of the MSA designation on the Sunfish <br />Lake Drive - 148~h lane alignment. The then elected city council made an agreement with the Hunlers <br />Hill residents association that no connection to 144~h lane would occur until a Noflh connection to <br />Courtly Road 57 was in place. The benefit to the developer of Chestnut Hills is the proximity of the <br />alignment to Tungsten St., and the shodness of the conneclion which would allow the city to condemn <br />and have Tungsten constructed al the same time. They are also Ihs only willing participant to this <br />alignment and the condemnation procedure. There are only three land owners in the proposed <br />alignment. <br /> <br />I was at a meeting with other owners, council persons, and staff on April 27, to discuss lhe method and <br />area of assessing back a "development Impact Fee" fo the benefitting propedies as they develope. At <br />this meeting, not one word was mentioned aboul the "Proposed revised Preliminary Plat for Cheslnut <br />hill". If it had, One of the other owners would have been a Iot more upset than he was. <br /> <br />I would ask to Planning Commission to Recommend Approval of the Minor Subdivision, contingent upon <br />availability oI~Sewer and water, and street frontage. (Which at this moment is slilled proposed) <br /> <br />14501 Sunfish Lake Blvd <br /> <br /> <br />