My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 01/18/1994
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1994
>
Agenda - Council - 01/18/1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2025 4:05:41 PM
Creation date
10/10/2003 2:44:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
01/18/1994
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
238
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ms. Willi_a~Goodr£ch <br />January 2~ 1993 <br /> <br />3. F~bli~ Use of Land <br /> <br />As a pare of the PUD approval, the City required that a deed <br />restriction~be imposed on the deed ~rom the City to the golf <br />course owners, requiring that the golf course be perpetually open <br />for public 91ay, at ra~es comparable ~o other local public <br />courses. F~r all practical p~rposes, the City received a free <br />municipal golf course without =he attendant headaches of <br />ownership. ~or any subsequent developer to claim =he right %0 <br />our trear~men~, his project would also need to have created a <br />substantial ~ublic recreational opportunity. <br /> <br />Grandfather's Rights to Higher Densit? <br /> <br />Prior to pla:ting Rum River Kills, we had been assessed ~or a <br />road ~prove~ient project on a portion of our land based on a <br />densit~ formula which produced far more assessments than would <br />have been th~ case under a one-in-ten acre density, which was in <br />effect a= ~he! time of the PUD. The number of lots we were <br />allowed was ~ recognition of ~hese rights and was a compromise. <br />In addition,~he PUD ordinance does not have any density goals or <br />requirements. k case-by-case review is done. <br /> <br />5. Downscal%ng .ADproved Densit~ ~. <br /> <br />The approved narrative for the PUD called for a densit~ of up =o <br />10 unics per acre for Outlo= C, which would mean.about 36 unins. <br />We are asking ~or a lower densitt, looking for 12 units on 4.6 <br />acres as opposed to 36 unics on 3.6 acres. " <br /> <br />6. Backup. Drainfield 3~reas <br /> <br />The CiTy requi=ed, as a condition of approval o~ the PUD, =hat we <br />obtain easements over all 120+ acres of golf course ~aiL~a~s =o <br />accommodate backup systems ~or possible d~ain~ield ~ailures. <br />This =ransla=es~ =o about an additional 3.4 acres of land for <br />eve_-wy lo= in th~ subdivision. <br /> <br />In short, for s=bsequent developers to claim =ha= approval of our <br />current replat ~Would entitle ~hem to~do, townhouse development of <br />a similar nature, I believe ~ha= thei~roposal would need to <br />meet ~he ~ollowing criteria: " <br /> <br />(1) ~e of similar size (150+ acres); · <br /> <br />(2) Be proposed as a PUD, with multiple land uses; <br /> <br />(3) Contain a major public rec_ea=lona! facility; <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.