Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Sylvia ~rolik <br />August 5, 1992 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />description~was ever changed, but I do not believe it was. It <br />was the intention of the developer at that time that high density <br />residentialidevelopment 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 approval of the PUD which occurred in 1984, two things <br />have happengd which have led us to consider a change in the high <br />density residential portion of the PUD. First of all, the <br />Metropo!ita~ Council has indicated that it may be willing to <br />consider package treatment plants serving private developments in <br />unsewered a~eas outside the MUSA line, for outer-ring suburban <br />communitiesiin knoka County. This would mean that it may be <br />possible fo~ us to go ahead and develop the high density <br />residential!using a central water facility and'a package <br />treatment p~ant for sewage disposal. We do have a preliminary <br />site plan i~dicating the feasibility of a 36-unit townhouse <br />developmentlwith such facilities. <br /> <br />However, the second development concerns the responses of some of <br />the area residents. In broaching ~his subject, we have met with <br />extreme resistance to the concept of high density housing, even <br />though thaticoncept has been approved by the City for this <br />parcel. We!feel, quite frankly, that were we to propose this <br />concept now~ or 10 years from now, it would be met with very <br />stiff neigh$.orhood opposition. The retail value of 36 townhouse <br />sites, at $i5,000.00 per site, is $540,000.00. Obviously, the <br />return of t~at sum of money for a 3.75 acre site, even including <br />the development costs for a sewer and water facility, makes <br />pursuing th~s concept quite attractive. On the other hand, we <br />(Tom Anders~n and myself) live in the area, and are not anxious <br />to antagonize the neighbors. We have always obtained the optimum <br />degree of cqoperation ~rom the City in this project, and believe <br />that we hav~ produced 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 sparked some interest in an alternative proposal. A <br />portion of ~he F~jestic Oaks PUD was developed with attractive <br />townhomes aD~anged in a fairly low density setting. These <br />consist of s~veral pairs of townhouses..arranged around a private <br />street, involving an owners' association and protective covenants <br />for mainten~ce and the like. The sites .all have individual <br />septic systess, but the adjacent golf course fairways are <br />available fo~ backup if needed. The townhomes retail for <br />approximatel~ $150,000.00 each, including the lot, and are very <br />attractive ~n.~d compatible with the adjoining homes. The City <br />does not have any ownership or responsibility of anything within <br /> <br /> <br />