Laserfiche WebLink
1575 i Potassium Street NW <br />Rnmsey, MN 55303 <br /> <br />April 6, 2005 <br /> <br />Atrn: City Ptanning StatTand Commission <br /> <br />R.e: Shade Tree Cottages and Rum River Meadows Development Plans <br /> <br />As I listen to the red winged blackbirds, duckz, 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 developments for the <br />lbtlowing 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 this matter. A resident, stated to me that because k 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 resiilents 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 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 poims. <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 />1<-1 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 />difficutt 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 Gamec 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 fi.om 3 units p~ acre to 4 units per acre. The spiri~ 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 allow 6 units per acre is perhaps because <br />of all the associated problems with drainage, access, traffic, plowing, emergency services and effect on <br />wetland and surrounding residents. In this case, because of the wetlands, 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 concerns. [ 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 />'qlecommendation" portion of this case which state that the preliminary plat for the development of <br />R,m 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 />cromer ofl~um River Meadows as it is part of the River Pines addition. However my next door neighbors <br /> <br /> <br />