Laserfiche WebLink
CASE <br /> <br />PRQPOSAL FOR TOWNHOUSES OF RUM RIVER HILLS; <br />CASE OF WILBUR DORN <br /> By: Zoning Administrator Sylvia Frolik <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />On April 6:1993i, the Planning Commission reviewed a sketch plan for ~ownhouses of Rum <br />River Hills whic~ proposed to replat Lot 1, Block 2 and Outlot C, Rum River Hills, into 12 <br />townhouse lots. The 12 units were proposed to be served by individual on-site septic systems and <br />wells. <br /> <br />At that time, City Staff raised the following concerns with the proposal: <br /> <br />1) <br />2) <br /> <br />3) <br />4) <br /> <br />It Conflicts with the 4 in 40 density policy for the rural dislrict. <br />Nolprevious commitment on the City's part to allow for thc multi-family units prior <br />to the extension of municipal services to the area. <br />City's liability for high density development with on-site septic systems. <br />Ci~'s justification for allowing premature high density housing to other would-be <br />deOelopers in the rural district. <br /> <br />Metropolitan Council's concerns raised at the rime were: <br /> [ <br /> <br />1) <br />2) <br /> <br />3) <br />4) <br /> <br />Co~licts with timing for public facilities in Ramsey's Comprehensive Plan. <br />Coiffiicts with policy for density not to exceed one unit per 10 acres in the rural <br /> <br />R~en.qey would be fully responsible for any pollution problem that evolves. <br />The soils in the area are not conducive to on-site septic systems. <br /> <br />Based on the abo~e concerns, City Staff recommended denial of the proposal. However, the <br />Plan.ning a:n.d Zon{ng Commission recommended approval of the sketch plan with the following <br />contingencies: <br /> <br />i) <br /> <br />2) <br /> <br />3) <br />4) <br /> <br />5) <br /> <br />6) <br /> <br />7) <br /> <br />Demonstration that individual on-site septic systems can be accommodated <br />accOrding to applicable codes. <br />Demonstration that adjacent easement area lands have sufficient available suitable <br />soils to accommodate back-up drainfields areas for the 12 units. <br />Receipt of favorable comments from Metropolitan Council regarding the proposal. <br />Fur her review by legal counsel of the precedent which would be set by approval of <br />this iproject. <br />Vezification that water supply system for the units is approved by appropriate <br />age tcies. <br />Vex ~qcation that party wails between units would be constructed of f'Lre proof <br />ma :erials. <br />Ree :ipt of assurances from Metropolitan Council that approval of the proposal will <br />not _ieopardize any future MUSA expansions in Ramsey. <br /> <br /> <br />