Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Sylvia Frolik <br />August 5, t992 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />description was ever changed, but I do not believe it was. It <br />was the int~ ntion of the developer at that time that high density <br />residentiali development would in fact occur on the 3.75 acre <br />parcel, res~lting in 18 to 36 units being developed on that <br />parcel. <br /> <br />Since the a~proval of the PUD which occurred in 1984, two things <br />have happened which have led us to consider a change in the high <br />density res%dential portion of the PUD. First of all, the <br />Metropolitan Council has indicated that it may be willing to <br />consider package treatment plants serving private developments in <br />unsewered ar~as outside the MUSA line, for outer-ring suburban <br />communities in Anoka County. This would mean that it may be <br />possible for'us to go ahead and develop the high density <br />residential msing a central water facility and a package <br />treatment plant for sewage disposal. We do have a preliminary <br />site plan indicating the feasibility of a 36-unit townhouse <br />development with such facilities. <br /> <br />However, the second development concerns the responses of some of <br />the area residents. In broaching this subject, we have met with <br />extreme resistance to the concept of high density housing, even <br />though that concept has been approved by the City for this <br />parcel. We feel, quite frankly, that were we to propose this <br />concept now, dr 10 years from now, it woj~ld be met with very <br />stiff neighborhood opposition. The retail value of 36 townhouse <br />sites, at $15,~000000 per site, is $540,000.00. Obviously, the <br />return of that sum of money for a 3.75 acre site, even including <br />the developmen~ costs for a sewer and water facility, makes <br />pursuing this ~oncept quite attractive. On the other hand, we <br />(Tom Anderson and myself) live in the area, and are not anxious <br />to antagonize She neighbors. We have always obtained the optimum <br />degre~ of cooperation ~rom the City in this project, and believe <br />that we have pHoduced a project which is a valuable asset to the <br />City. <br /> <br />A recent development in the Majestic Oaks PUD in the City of Ham <br />Lake has sparke~ some interest in an alternative proposal. A <br />portion of the Najestic Oaks PUD was developed with attractive <br />townhomes arranged in a fairly low density setting. These <br />consist of seveSal pairs of tow-nhouses arranged around a private <br />street, involviRg an owners' association.and protective covenants <br />for maintenanceland the like. The sites all have individual <br />septic systems, !but the adjacent golf course fairways are <br />available for b~ckup if needed. The townhomes retail for <br />approximately $1~0,000.00 each, including the lot, and are very <br />attractive and compatible with the adjoining homes. The City <br />does not have an~ ownership or responsibility of anything within <br /> <br /> <br />