Agenda - Council - 05/10/2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

land is NOT part of River Pines. This property is also adjacent to Rum River Meadows as well as Shade Tree Cottages and IT IS SUBJECT TO DENSITY TRANSITIONING LAWS, At a previous city council meeting, At Large Representative Sarah Strommen recommended that the three units in the northeast comer of Shade Tree Cottages adjacent to my neighbor, s property be reduced to two in order to comply with density transitioning requirements. As this existing property is ALSO adjacent to Rum River Meadows where there are SIX units planned, this density should also be reduced to comply with the density transitioning laws. If you will not consider the needs of the land, the wildlife, and the existing residents in this gray area, at least consider the matter of your own laws. One simple way to solve this problem as well as the useable green space problem would be to remove two of the six units in the northwest corner of Rum River Meadows and create a USEABLE green space park are in this place. This would require the developer to follow the spirit of the density transitioning laws as well as the spirit of the PUD laws. 6. At the last city council meeting in which Shade Tree Cottages was brought up, their representative (an employee of Midwest Land Surveyors) stated that they: had to survey and make recommendations that would allow constm~ion of new buildings to be unaffected by two one-hundred year flood events taking place in a single year. He stated that additionally, the development could not impact on existing buildings in a situation in which there were two one-hundred year flood events. This rule seems reasonable given that there are scarcely 100 years of weather data available for the a~ea. Rum River Meadows has given no such indication that they have studied this. According to their drawings there are many places where the current land elevations are 6 inches below the minimum building requirements, There are areas in which dense housing is to be put. In fact most of the cul-de-sac road lies below minimum floor elevation · requirements. While this may not be illegal, it underscores just how Iow this entire 10 acre plot is and how little margin for error there is in the engineers flooding calculations. If several inches of fill has to be brought in over much of the property in order to build, this will surely affect the surrounding wetlands, proposed drainage areas and surrounding propei'~ies. If the developer is required to plat so that two one- hundred year flood events will not impact surrounding, properties, Why does this developer list two emergency overflow areas that drain directly onto the property owned by residents of River Pines??? Their current plan to connect to our pond by excavating or putting a pipe in is vague at best and brings in a host of potential problems, What will happen to the hundreds of fish and wildlife in oar pond with this process? There is also a double fence along the entire property line between Rum River Meadows and River Pines. What do they plan to do with this? Will they cut it and leave the loose wire ends? They do not have the right to remove the entire fence and one of them is on our property and NOT in the drainage easement section. If the city or the developer excavates into our easement property who will pay for the finishing landscaping?? l:l'ow will our pond being joined to a smaller pond-that drains 10 acres of artificially raised wetland affect our pond water levels? Our landscaping? OUR PROPERTY VALUES????? 7. several 'articles have appeared in local papers regarding the problems-created by Ramsey's rapid development. A Star Tribune article that was printed the day a~er these developments last both appeared before the city council brought to light the probtem of rapid dense expansion along County Road 5. They pointed out the serious accidents that have occurred in this corridor recently and add that the state is unlikely to allow widening or improvement of the road regardless of how much increase there is in population density and traffic due to the fact that it is bordered on both s~des by federally protected wetlands. We already pay the price for this with school bussing fees. My family lives within walking distance (1.4 miles) of the elementary school. Yet I pay $350 per year to have my children ride the bus because the school district considers 1a through 5th graders to have a safe walkway down County Road 5 winter and summer. Anyone who has driven down this road knows this is laughable. Having walked and biked the road myself, l can attest that it is risky for an experienced adult. I related this only to underscore a growing problem that needs to be addressed along this corridor and in the entirety of Ramsey. Since the required traffic impact study has been delayed and the information is not available to consider, this plan cannot be recommended for approval and I suggest it be tabled until this report, is available for study. .. 8. I strongly disagree with city staff's recommeiad'ation that the city's requirement of park dedication land be met by cash. Again this underscores the fact that there is no benefit to the area -230-