Laserfiche WebLink
City of Ramsey <br />15153 NOW'THEN BOULEVARD N.W., RAMSEY, MINNESOTA 553(33 · (6IZ) 427.1410 <br /> <br />September 21, 1992 <br /> <br />Wilbur (Bill) Dom, Jr. <br />Dom & Edwards, Ltd. <br />320 ~ch Main St:met <br />Ano'ka, Mn 55303 <br /> <br />Re: Rum River Hills <br /> <br />Dc. ar Bill: <br /> <br />This letter is in response to your n-ansmittal dated August 5, 1992 regarding the Rum River Hills <br />Planned Unit Development (PUD). Your loner was a discussion of that portion of the PUD <br />orig-inally planned for, high density housing at the time municipal water and sanitary sewer becomes <br />avaflable. As I understand it, you are suggesting a PUD amendment that would reduce the high <br />densiD' housing that was discussed at the time of PUD approval to mid-density housing and allow <br />for development of this mid-densin., housing prior to the availability of municipal services. <br /> <br />The Rum River Hills PUD Development Agreement did specify that the 3.75 acre Outlot C was <br />approved for development with multiple family housing at the rime sewer and water became <br />available, but it did not specify to what density. I did find a Rum River Hills Final Plan that <br />addressed the 3.75 acre outlot and that it was proposed at a density of 5-10 units per acre or lg to <br />37 units. <br /> <br />A PUD amendment may be reasonable and your current proposal for 12 units on 4.75 a~es (a <br />combination of Out_lot C and Lot 1, Blozk 2) is a subst~rial reduction in the densi5, orienally <br />discussed. I should note at this time that the overall density of the PUD with the 12 units of <br />townhomes would be 1 unfl/4.88 acres versus I uniff2.75 ac'res orienalty considered. However, <br />I am sure that you can understand that even with the substantial reduction in density, the CiV <br />would have some concerns with development of this muifipie family housing in the tm-al distain <br />without municipal services. At fn'st review, our concerns are: <br /> <br />a) <br /> <br />It would appear by the Rum River Hills Development Agreement that the Ciw did grant you <br />z proper%' right for some multiple family housing.within the P.U.D. after sewer and water <br />became available. However, I don't know that the City's approval of premature <br />development of the multiple family pon:ion of the PUD can be justified based on a reduction <br />in density when the development a_m-eement did not confirm that the multiple housing was <br />approved at 5-10 units per acre. <br /> <br />b) <br /> <br />Premature development of high density housing in the rural district concerns us for several <br />reP. sons: <br /> <br /> <br />