Laserfiche WebLink
!575l Potassium Street NW <br />t~,amsey, MN 55303 <br /> <br />April 6, 2005 <br /> <br />City Planning Staff and Commission <br /> <br />Re: Shade Tree Cottages and Rum River Meadows Development Plans <br /> <br />As 1 listen to the red winged blackbirds, ducl~, and geese return to the lands.in question this spring, I am <br />driven to strongly request that you deny approval of the preliminary plat for these developmentg for the <br />t'ollowing reasons. <br /> <br />1. Residents along the Potassium access continue to disPute the ownership of the road, and I am told that <br />they have retained a lawyer in tiffs 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 public street. Since land on both Sides of the street is owned by resi~tents 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 yet been addressed, and in the case of Rum River MeadoWs, have been essentially <br />ignored. These include but are not limited to overall density, the length ofeul--de-saca, 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 poir~. <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 Wh~ther the area is zoned <br />R- l or PUD, the builder still has to comply 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 w~tland (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 is 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 a/low 6 tmit~ per acre is perhaps because <br />of all the associated problems with drainage, access, traffm, plowing emergency services and effect on <br />wetland and surrounding residents. In this ease, because of the wetlands, the practical density is 6 units per <br />acre and should not be a/lowed. 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. I~m giver Meadows has <br />made little attempt to address concerns. 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 of this case which state that the preliminar~ 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 ~ it is part of the River Pines addition. However my next door neighbor~ <br /> <br /> <br />