Laserfiche WebLink
'1 <br /> <br />I <br /> RUM RIVER HILLS ~j. ~ <br />I A Planned Unit Development ~ <br /> <br />I November 12, 1984 ~UI ~[~.~ ~ <br /> <br /> The Honorable ~Mayor and City Council <br />I City of RamseY <br /> City Hall <br /> Ramsey, Minnesota 55303 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />Dear Mayor and Council: <br /> <br />In September ! appeared before the City Council with the proposed <br />drawing of the final version of the planned unit development <br />known as Rum River Hills. This project had previously received <br />the approval of the City Council, has had its public hearings, <br />pursuant to the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, and, in its <br />original version, had apparently received the blessing of the <br />Metropolitan Council as far as its conformance with the City's <br />comprehensive plan. The original version of the planned <br />development called for a golf course, combined with a ten acre <br />commercial parcel, a three acre commercial parcel for the club <br />house facilities, two outlets for future development, and 20" <br />single family .residential lots. The overall density of the <br />project was somewhat in excess of one lot per seven acres. <br /> <br />The north 30 ~cres of this parcel had previously been assessed <br />for street improvements, and received a total between seven and <br />eight assessments of $1400 each, contemplating at least seven to <br />eight lots beiing constructed on that 30 acres, under the City's <br />former two and a half acre per lot density. After the assessment <br />had been levied, the City's comprehensive plan was adopted, and a <br />part of the Cilty's reasoning and agreeing to the lower density <br />was the fact that this northerly 30 acres had been assessed at a <br />much higher density. It was agreed between the City and the <br />Developers thait some compromise could be worked out through the <br />planned unit development concept. <br /> <br />The final version, after refining all of the various plans, doing <br />engineering studies, and the like, has only two fundamental <br />changes from t~e original version. First of all, instead of two <br />outlets for future development, there is only one outlet, which <br />is unbuildable with that designation. Secondly, and apparently <br />more significantly, we have requested that there be 23 single <br />family residential lots as opposed to the 20 originally proposed. <br /> <br />We offer the f~llowing justification for the increase in number <br /> <br /> <br />