Agenda - Council - 01/25/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of Ramsey 15153 NOW'THEN BOULEVARD N.W., RAMSEY, MINNESOTA 55303 · (612) 427.141D September 21, 1992 Wilbur (Bill) Dom, 3r. Dom & Edwards, Ltd. 320 E. ach Main Stm=t Anoka, Mn 55303 Re: Rum River Hills Dear Bill: This letter is in response to your n-ansmiual dated August 5, 1992 regarding the Rum River Hills Planned Unit Development' (PUD). Your letter was a discussion of that portion of the PUD orig'i.nally planned for high density, housing at the rime municipal water and sanitm'3, sewer becom=s avMtable. As I understand it., you are suggesting a PUD amendment that would reduce the high densib' housing that was discussed at the time of pLTD approval to mid-density housing and allow for development of this rind-density housing prior to the availability of municipal services. The Rum River Hills PU':D Development Ageement did specify that the 3.75 acre Oudot C was approved for development with multiple family housing at the dine sewer and water became available, but it did not specie' to what density. I did find a Rum River Hills Final Plan that addressed the 3.75 acre outlot and that ir was proposed at a density of 5-t0 units per acre or 18 to 37 units. A PUD amendment may be reasonable and your current proposal for 12 unks on 4.75 acres (a combination of Ourlot C and Lot 1, Block 2) is a substantial reduction in the densib, o,,"i~nally discussed. I should note ar this rime that the overaI1 density of the PUD with the 12 units of townhomes would be 1 uniE4.e8 acres versus ] uniff2.75 acres or~¢nal}), considered. However, I am sure that you can understand that even with the substantial reduction in dens/ty, the City would have some concerns with rievelovment of this multiple fm-nily housing in the rural dismct without municipal scm-vices. At fn'st review, our concerns are: It would appear by the Rum River H/tls Development Agreement that the CiD' did ~.nt you a property right for some multiple farrfily housing within the P.U.D. after sewer and water became available. However, I don't know that the City's approval of premature development of the multiple family portion of the PUD can be justified based on a reduction in density when the development aero-cement did not confirm that the rnuldpIe housing was approved at 5-10 units per acre. b) Premature development of high density housing in the tin-'al disu'/ct concerns us for several TeaSOllS',