Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />DEC 02 '~8 10:5~ <br /> <br />Are the community's wastewatcr flow projections for 2000, 2010 and 2020 different than those developed <br />by the metropolitan council? Yes No _. <br /> <br />Note: Wastewater flows are unknown ar this time. <br /> <br />If yes, what are the wastewater flow projections for; <br /> <br />Metropolitan Council (million gallons per year): <br />City of Ramsey (million gallons per year): <br /> <br />2000 2010 2020 <br />157-187 328401 542-668 <br /> <br />What is the amount of vacant (developable) land within the current urban service area? <br /> Single-family residential I I0 acres <br /> Multi-family residential 7 acres <br /> Commercial 263 . acres <br /> Industrial 176 acres <br /> Public and semi-public NA acres <br /> <br />Is there any underused land or land targeted for reuse as residential development? <br /> Yes No X <br />If yes, how many acres? N/A <br /> <br />Do you anticipate requesting to add more land to the MUSA? Yes _ X No <br />If yes, how much? .see table 15 on vuz_ e 48 of Noveraber 9 draft r~lan When? <br /> <br />How does this relate to accommodating the Council's forecasts? The C~ty wilt nor be a~.l.e to <br />accommodate _the Metropolita~n Council'q forecast for proiected househqld growth. Future ttr. b..an <br />e~c~ansion for re.ffdential hou. einz is expected to occur westerly alone US.TH.JO and i,v t~roiected to <br />deve.lot~ at a net density of 3.58.~nits per net.acre (3 units per gross aerel. Altho~2h the maximum densit. V <br />for the maiori~, of the urba. n residential expq~ngion area iq 5 units per, .net acre (or slightly over 4 units p. er <br />gross acre), d~ue t;~ environmq..ntal regulations (shorelands. critical greas, wetlands) and exi:eting larg, a <br />lot deyelopment l~tterns, actual density will iikqly be les.$ than 5 units per net acre. The r)lanned <br />expansion allows for more economic qIe.v, elopment growth than pr. oiected bv the Metropolitan Council. <br /> <br />Are your transportatio~ assumptions consistent with the information in the Council's system <br />statement? Yes No X <br /> <br />If no, please explain Ttge. Metropolitan Council and M..nDOT dso. nor shaw any plans for sn~dyir~g <br />t.r. ansportati.on issttes rela.t, ed to the Highway 10 corridor and the issue olean, imt~roved Mississim~i River <br />Crossing (includin£.studving potentials for a new bridgeJ in the Cit~ of Ramse. v except £or_.a managel'nent <br />study for Highwa~ 10 sched~led between 2.001 and 2005. In additio_n, imvrovemenrs to Highway 47 will <br />not be sufficient to hand!e_.growth from outlvin.e regions._.to the north and no ~nding is sch,~duled to p .fqn <br />for adding cat~acilv re TH 4Z TH 47 is al~'o designated as a State Preservati,on Hi$?hway, which limit~' <br />ex_pension ca~abi_!ities. The implementation s.t_rat, e. eies for the Ramsey_ Comt~rehensive Plan su_eg_est q <br />re_ggional planning am~.r.o~¢h, to re. solving issues related to capaci~_ deficiencies on Highwtrvs 47 a~d 10. <br />These planning, sttMies should address impacts resulting_from regional gro~.th, and solu. t. ions inclu&'ne <br /> <br /> <br />