Agenda - Council - 01/18/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ms. Sylvia Frolik August 5, 1992 Page 3 the development, and the overall desired municipal density in the entire project is observed. What we wish to consider proposing to the City of Ramsey would be a similar development. In our case, we would eliminate one of our single fa~uily lots, that is, Lot 1, Block 2, and combine it with Outlot C to create a single 4.75 acre parcel. On this parcel we would propose to situate 6 pairs of townhomes, or 12 dwelling units in all, arranged along the outer perimeter of the new parcel, served by a single private road which would be maintained by the townhouse association, coming off of 171st Avenue. Individual sewer systems would be provided on each lot, but the actual dimensions of each lot would be the foundation area of each individual building site. The remainder would be a single tract owned by the owners' association, with common area maintenance covenants and cross easements covering the entire area. The second and third faiz-ways of the golf course, both of which have in the main part high elevations, would be used for backup drainfield space in the event that any system should fail. We already have easements over these fairways for this purpose, as that was contemplated as necessary in the original PUD. In reviewing the PUD ordinance, it does appear that it is entirely permissible to come in with an amended PUD at any time after approval of the original PUD. In ~act, my experience in the planning area is that a planned unit development is designed to be flexible for future changes in philosophy and market conditions that may occur. The PUD ordinance does not contain any specific density requirement, and the City has already set the precedent of allowing a less than 10 acre density for this particular project. We think the elimination of one single family lot and a potential 36-unit lot in favor of a 12-unit single fa~.ily cluster is still well within the reasonable range of compromise reached with the City several years ago, and entirely within the spirit and meaning of the City's PUD ordinance. We also feel that we would have strong neighborhood support for this type of development in favor of waiting for a higher density, albeit more profitable development, in the future. This would bring closure to this residential portion of this particular plat, and I think provide a permanent residential development more harmonious with the character of the present neighborhood. It has a sound basis in planning principles, is within the City's discretion under the PUD ordinance, and does not set any precedent that has not already been established th_rough approval of the overall concept.