12/04/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Lloy~ ':Sch~el le m c lerk-Adm~nis~rator City of Ramsek 15153 NoNihen~ Blvd. N.W. Ramsey, M(nn~sota 55303 Re: C~t~?of ~am~e7 Resolution ~o. ~0233: ~rel~m~nary ~pproval of the m Rum~ River Hill~ PUD Dear Lloyd: m I have ~e ie~ed the proposed plat and resolution for the Rum R~er H~lls and offor~th~ follo~n~ co~ents. m. ,. lhe ~c~rrQnt plat is apparently a revision to the one reviewed earlier by Bob ~R~an( with the addition of three lots, which changes the gross density from ~ne,~unit per eight acres to one unit per seven acres. m 2. whe~r~ ~he density is one unit per eight or one unit per seven is insig- nifi~nt+ What is at issue is how these densities relate to the on~ per 10 density )tandard for the rural service area established by the city s m co~ehe~sive plan. It appears that the city has not yet designed a method for ~pplying this density standard as an integral part of its review proCe~s.. For example, it is not unco~on for a co~unity to apply the one m per~o d~nsity standard on a section by section basis, which allows for flekSbil~ty and the transfer of density between developments within a . a. ~;Wlth~n the rural portions of Ramsey, this method is problematic due to ~the~ nu~er of lots that have already been platted. m b. :The~ lots already platted must be factored in when applying the one per ~10 Uensity standard. m 3. The ~ues~ion of appropriate density, in my estimation, will continue to arise as~ the city reviews each proposed development in the rural area until the~ ~it~ establishes a policy as to how to apply the one per 10 density m standard. ' ' m A P~Olicy is needed to ensure consistency between development reviews. a. m b. ~.Th~ policy should be included as part of the revisions to the city's :~zo~ing ordinance, ~ich I understand is currently under way. An Equal Op~fluniN Employer Metropolilar, C '" 300 Metro Square 5: ~',' .... Seventh Ohd Robet! '-?: ~ ' Si'. Paul, Minneso'.a f,' 4.,; ~lephone (6'~?:~ ' - ' '