My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 01/25/1994
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1994
>
Agenda - Council - 01/25/1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2025 4:05:53 PM
Creation date
10/10/2003 3:15:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
01/25/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
192
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
)tr. Wllll~ ~odr£ch <br />Januar~ 26, ~.993 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br /> 3. public Nse of La~d <br />As aparu ell =he PUD approval, the City required that a deed <br />restriction ~ impomed on the deed from the City to the golf <br />course owner~, requiring tha= the golf course be perpe=ually open <br />for public p~ay, ac rates comparable =o ocher local public <br />courses. Fo~ all practical purposes, the CiTy received a ~ree <br />municipal go~f course withou= r_he attendan= headaches of <br />ownermhip, or any subsequent developer to claim =he right to <br />our treatment, his projecc would also need to have crea=ed a <br />substantial public recrea=ional oppor=uniry. <br /> <br />4 ~randfa~her's ~i~hts to Hiqher Density <br /> <br />Prior to pla~=ing Rum River Hills, we had been assessed for a <br />road J~prove~. ent 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 at th~ time of the PUD. The number of lots we were <br />allowed was .~n recognition of ~hese rights and was a compromise. <br />In addi=ion,~ =he PUD ordinance does not have any density goals cr <br />requirementsI. A case-by-case review is done. <br /> <br />5. Dow~sca~inq ADuroved Densit? <br /> <br />The approvedi narrative for the PUD called for a densit! of up =o <br />10 unics peri acre for Ounlo~ C, which would mean.about 36 units. <br />We are askin~ for a lower density, looking for 12 u~.its on 4.6 <br />acres as opposed to 36 uni=s on 3.6 acres. <br /> <br />6. BaCkuD Drainfield Areas <br /> <br />The CiTy required, as a condition of approval of the PUD, =hat we <br />obtain easements over all 120+ acres of golf course !airways =o <br />accommodate ~ackup systems, for possible drainfield ~ilures. <br />This translates to about an additional 3.4 acres of land for <br />every to~ i ~ <br /> n~ the subdivision. <br /> <br />In shor~, fo~ subsequ, ent developers to claim fha= approval of our <br />current repl~t would entitle them to~do., townhouse development of <br />a similar nature, I believe =hat their ~roposal would need to <br />meet the ~ol~wing criteria: <br /> <br />(1) Be of s~J~ilar size (150+ acres); ~' <br /> <br />(2) Be proposed as a PUD, with multiple land uses; <br /> <br /> · ~ <br />(3) Contain a major public recreat~ona_ facility; <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.