12/04/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I i I I I I November ~2, 1984 I I I We offer RUM RIVER HILLS Planned Unit Development ?he Honq[ab~e Nayor end City Council .City of City Ramsey,iNin~esota 55303 Dear HayOr ~nd Council: In Septe~be~ I appeared before the .City Council with the proposed drawing! ~f fhe final version of the planned unit development known aS!iRu~ River Hills. This project had previously received the appk~va~ of the City Council, has had its public hearings, pursuan.~i[to! the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, and, in its originaillive~sion, had apparently received the blessing of the .. Metrop~l~ta~ Council as far as its conformance with the City's comprehe~silYe plan. The original version of the planned develo~n~ called for a golf course, combined with a ten acre commercial ~parcel, a three acre commercial parcel for the club house ~a~ci~ities, two outlots for future development, and 20 single ~am~ly residential lots. The overall density of the project ~wa~ somewhat in excess of one lot per seven acres. ~ . .The north 30 acres of this parcel had Previously been assessed for st~et~improvements and received a total between seven and eight aS.se&sments of $1400 each, contemplating at least seven to eight ~.ts[being constructed on that 30 acres, under the City's former[ iwo[and a half acre per lot density. After the assessment had bee~ l~vied, the City's comprehensive plan was adopted, and a part of.th~ City's reasoning and agreeing %o the lower density I was th~ fa~t that this northerly 30 acres had been assessed at a much h~i~he~ density. It was agreed between the City and the ~vel~p~rs~that some compromise could be worked out through the plann~d~{ un'it development concept. The final [version, after refining all of the various plans, doing engin~e~ri~g studies, and the like,.;-has only two fgndamental changes] fDom the original version. .First of all, 'instead of two outlo~ fgr future development~ there i.s only one outlot, which is unbd~il~able with that designation. Secondly, and apparently more ~gn~fican%ly, we have requested that there be 23 single famil~ {~re~idential lots as opposed ~o the 20 originally proposed. following justification for ~he increase in number