Agenda - Council - 03/08/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I Ms. Sylvia~Frolik August 5, ~992 Page 2 descriptio~ was ever changed, but I do not believe it was. It was the in~ntion of the developer at that time that high density residentialI development would in fact occur on the 3.75 acre parcel, res~lting in 18 to 36 units being developed on that parcel. ~ Since the approval of the PUD which occurred in 1984, two things have happened which have led us to consider a change in the high density residential portion of the PUD. First of all, the Metropo!itaD Council has indicated that it may be willing to consider package treatment plants serving private developments in unsewered a~eas outside the MUSA line, for outer-ring suburban communities~in Anoka County. This would mean that it may be possible fo~ us to go ahead and develop the high density residential[using a central water facility and a package treatment p~ant for sewage disposal. We do have a preliminary site plan i~dicating the feasibility of a 36-unit townhouse development~with such facilities. However, th~ second development concerns the responses of some of the area residents. In broaching this subject, we have met with extreme resistance to the concept of high density housing, even though thatlconcept has been approved by the City for this parcel. We~feel, quite frankly, that were we to propose this concept nowi or 10 years from now, it would be met with very stiff neighborhood opposition. The retail value of 36 townhouse sites, at $15,000.00 per site, is $540,000.00. Obviously, the return of t~at sum of money for a 3.75 acre site, even including the development costs for a sewer and water facility, makes · & pursuing th~s concept quite attractive. On the other hand, we (Tom Anders~n and myself) live in the area, and are not anxious to antagonize the neighbors. We have always obtained the optimum degree of c~operation from the City in this project, and believe that we hav~ produced a project which is a valuable asset to the City. A recent degelopment in the Majestic Oaks PUD in the City of Ham Lake has sparked some interest in an alternative proposal. A portion of ~he Majestic Oaks PUD was developed with attractive townhomes aDranged in a fairly low density setting. These consist of ~everal pairs of townhouses arranged around a private street, involving an owners' association and protective covenants for maintenance and the like. The sites all have individual septic system, s, but the adjacent golf course fairways are available f~ backup if needed. The townhomes retail for approximatel~ $150,000.00 each, including the lot, and are very attractive ~nd compatible with the adjoining homes. The City does not hav~ any ownership or responsibility of anything within