Laserfiche WebLink
RUM RIVER HILLS I~ ~ <br /> A Planned Unit Development . <br /> <br />November 12, 1984 ./½ <br /> <br />The Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />City of Rams~ey <br />City Hall <br />Ramsey, Minnesota 55303 <br /> <br />Dear Mayor and Council: <br /> <br />In September. I appeared before the City Council with the proposed <br />drawing of the final version of the planned unit development <br />known as Ruml 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 vergion, 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 ~alled for a golf course, combined with a ten acre <br />commercial parcel, a three acre commercial parcel for the cl'ub <br />house facilities, two outlots for future development, and 20 <br />single family residential lots. The overall density of the <br />project was bomewhat in excess of one lot per seven acres. <br /> <br />The north 30~ acres 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 b~ing 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 City'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 that 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. the original version. First of all, instead of two <br />outlots for future development, there is only one outlot, 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 thei following justification for the increase in number <br /> <br /> i <br /> <br /> <br />