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

Home

City of Ramsey 15153 NOWTHEN BOULEVARD N.W., RAMSEY, MINNESOTA 55303 (612) 427-1410 I I I September 21, 1992 Wilbur (Bill) Dom, Jr. Dom & Edwards, Ltd. 320 Each Main Street Anoka, Mn 55303 Re: Rum River Hills Dear Bill: This letter is in response to your transmittal dated August 5, 1992 regarding the Rum River Hills Planned Unit Development (PUD). Your letter was a discussion of that portion of the PUD originally planned for high density housing at the time municipal water and sanitary sewer becomes available. As I understand it, you are suggesting a PUD amendment that would reduce the high density housing that was discussed at the time of PUD approval to mid-density housing and allow for development of this mid-density housing prior to the availability of municipal services. The Rum River Hills PUD Development Ag-reement did specify that the 3.75 acre Outlot C was approved for development with multiple family housing at the time sewer and water became available, but it did not specify to what density. I did find a Rum River Hills Final Plan that addressed the 3.75 acre outlot and that it was proposed at a density of 5-10 units per acre or 18 to 37 units. A PUD amendment may be reasonable and your current proposal for 12 units on 4.75 acres (a combination of Ouflot C and Lot 1, Block 2) is a substantial reduction in the density originally discussed. I should note at this time that the overall density of the PUD with the 12 units of townhomes would be 1 unit/4.88 acres versus 1 unit/2.75 acres oricnally considered. However, I am sure that you can understand that even with the substantial reduction in density, the City would have some concerns with development of this multiple family housing in the rural district without municipal services. At Fu'st review, our concerns are: a) It would appear by the Rum River Hills Development Agreement that the City did grant you a property fight for some multiple family 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 agreement did not confn'rn that the multiple housing was approved at 5-10 units per acre. b) Premature development of high density housing in the rural district concerns us for several reasons: I I I I i I I I I I I I I I