Laserfiche WebLink
15751 Potassium Street NC/ <br />Ramsey, MN 55303 <br /> <br />April 6, 2005 <br /> <br />Attn: City Planning Staff and Commission <br /> <br />Re: Shade Tree Cottages and Rum River Meadows Development Plans <br /> <br />As t listen to the'red winged blackbirds, ducks, and geese remm to the lands in question this spring, I am <br />driven to strongly request that you deny approval of the preliminary plat for these developments for the <br />following reasons. <br /> <br />1. Residents along the Pota-qsium access continue to dispute the ownership of the road, and I am told that <br />they have retained a lawyer in this matter. A resident stated to me that because it was considered a private <br />road. they could not get school bus service or mail delivery up this road, nor could they get a stop sign <br />installed at the end. This is evidenced by the fact that the mailboxes are all at the end of the road. Both <br />developments are contingent upon the use and improvement of this section of Potassium Street being <br />labeled as a pub)it street. Since land .on both sides of the street is owned by residents involved in this <br />dispute it is perhaps a waste of the city staff's time and taxpayers' money to continue any further with this <br />project approval until this dispute is resolved. <br /> <br />2. Many of the Original concerns of area residents, Planning Commission members, and City Council <br />members have not ye~ been addressed, and in the case.orR, urn River Meadows, have been essentially <br />ignored. These include but are not limited to overall density, the length of cul-de-sacs, and the lack of any <br />benefit to the city and residents for granting a PUD rezoning. Some of the details of these concerns will be <br />brought up in future points. <br /> <br />3. The purpose of a PUD was to give a builder a right to increase housing, density in exchange for that <br />builder providing an area of common benefit such as a public square or park Whether the area is zoned <br />R-1 or PUD, the builder still has to compty with federal regulations regarding the wetlands involved. <br />Merely using .a PUD designation as a way to maximize profit by increasing density on' an area which is <br />difficult to develop because of the extent of federally protected wetlands without providing a useable <br />common area is a gross misuse of this new and vague city law. Mayor Cramec himself stated that these <br />developments were lacking a central useable common area and that this needed to be changed, since the <br />only solution'provided involved building a boardwalk across federally protected wetland (which would <br />require filling in that wetland), I believe more work should be done on solving the common green space <br />problem. Suggestion will be provided in future points. <br /> <br />4. PUD zoning allows a change from 3 units per acre to 4 units per acre. The spirit of this law indicates a <br />lot size that i~ 33 percent smaller than the 10,800 square feet currently allowed in an R-I zone. The <br />proposed lot sizes of 3,600 and 3,772 square foot lots are approximately 67 percent smaller than currently <br />allowed. We should respect the fact that the reason PUD does not allow 6 units per acre is perhaps because <br />of all the associated problems with drainage, access, traffic, ptowing, emergency services and effect on <br />wetland and surrounding residents. In this case, because of the we{lands, the practical density is 6 units per <br />acre and should not be allowed. In an effort to comply with city recommendations and federal wetland <br />laws, Shade Tree Cottages proposal has brought their density down to 2.75. Rum River Meadows has <br />made little attempt to address concern-q. I suggest that they would do well to follow the example of their <br />neighboring developer and may find they have a proposal that is more acceptable to all if they reduce their <br />overall density into the range that Shade Tree Cottages has. Please note the misstatement on the <br />"Recommendation" portion o£ this ease which Slate that the preIiminary plat for the development of <br />Rum River Estates is 3.4 units per acre. This is NOT within the allowed density established within <br />the R-1 district as is stated, <br /> <br />5. It has been noted that density transitioning does not apply to my property adjacent to the northwest <br />comer of Rum River Meadows as it is part of the River Pines addition. However my next door neighbors <br /> <br />-274- <br /> <br /> <br />