Laserfiche WebLink
CASE <br /> <br />PROPOSAL 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, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed a sketch plan for 'Townhouses of Rum <br />River Hills' whi{h 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 2qtaff raised the following concerns with the proposal: <br /> <br />1) <br />2) <br /> <br />3) <br />4) <br /> <br />It e, onflicts with the 4 in 40 density policy for the rural district. <br />No previous commitment on the City's part to allow for the multi-family units prior <br />to ~ extension of municipal services to the area. <br />Ci~,s liability for high density development with on-site septic systems. <br />Ci/y s justification for allowing premature high density housing to other would-be <br />de~elopers in the rural district. <br /> <br />Metropolitan Council's concerns raised at the time were: <br /> <br /> I) Coaflicts with timing for public facilities in Ramsey's Comprehensive Plan. <br /> 2) Co~flicts with policy for density not to exce?d one unit per 10 acres in the rural <br /> area,. <br /> 3) Ramsey would be fully responsible for any pollution problem that evolves. <br /> 4) The~soils in the area are not conducive to on-site septic systems. <br /> <br />Based on the above concerns, City Staff recommended denial of the proposal. However, the <br />Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the sketch plan with the following <br />contingencies: <br /> <br />1) <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 />accot'ding 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 />Recdipt of favorable comments from Metropolitan Council regarding the proposal. <br />l:urtller review by legal counsel of the precedent which would be set by approval of <br />this ~roject. <br />Verification that water supply system for the units is approved by appropriate <br />agencies. <br />Veri~cation that party walls between units would be constructed of fzre proof <br />materials. <br />Receipt of assurances from Metropolitan Council that approval of the proposal will <br />not jebpardize any future MUSA expansions in Ramsey. <br /> <br /> <br />