Agenda - Council - 09/23/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

T0:6~2 427 5543 PR6E:05/06 majority of voters approve, the MUSA expansion request is forwarded for review. If it is not approved, the matter dies or the developer changes the proposal and tries again. Since adoption of this amendment in 1996, the city has not had any M'USA expansion reques'z.s. The ramifications of this charter amendment for the Metropolitan Council depend on how the amendment has actually worked. The prospect ora daunting review process where a developer faces the time commitment and expense of a referendum may dampen or prevent proposals for MUSA expansions, which means that additional development outside the present M3dSA will not happen on public sewers at higher density resulting in inefficient use of the land. Development may occur, but most likely at very Iow densities on septic systems. From a regional perspective, this means that people looking for typical city lots will need to look at adjoining communities (Dayton or Andover) or jump over these to cities farther out such as St. Francis or Elk River. The second charter amendment adopted in 1996 relates to extension of sewer lines or water lines to areas already in the MU'SA. The amendment states that "the city may not compel any property owner with a functional private sewer and water system to connect to city sewer and/or water." It continues "the city may not levy an assessment for any component of any project which includes sewer and/or water improvements against a property whose owner elects to remain on a functional private sewer and/or water system." These questions mainly affect the Council's Water Resources Management Plan and its policy that states that w/thin two years of public sewer becoming available, the householder must hook up. This policy enables cities to reach out to correct failing septic systems as well as to develop land in an orderly and efficient way where some scattered on-site development has occurred. It further limits a city's' ability to extend sewer by allowing a householder to defer assessments by petitioning a city against sewer and water. The practical effects of ~is amendment is that the city cannot always assess for sewer extensions and land close in that is "ready" for sewered development may either be kept from development or developed on large lots with septic systems, causing demand to leap beyond the borders oft. he city to the next adjacent community with public sewers. The third charter amendment, which is scheduled for a referendum on September 22, 1997, relates to density. It states that "the following community development standards have been written to mitigate the impact high density residential development may have on existing lower density neighborhoods." It states that "all residential lots platted within the MUSA after .lanuary 1, 1997 shall provi de that the number of residential lots per acre (density)...within the subject propen'y that share a common border with residential lots platted prior to the subject property shall not exceed the lesser of(i) the density of the existing propen7 immediately adjoining the subject property at their respective common borders or (ii) one (l) residential platted lot for every one (1) acre of'subject property." It further requixes that "residential real proper~ platted within the MU'SA after .Yanuary I, 1997, sh all be subject to a traffic generation analysis which shall be provided by the developer o f the subject property." If the city's review of this analysis indicates it will "significantly increase the existing tra£fie flow through existing property...Ramsey shall limit the platted density of the subject property to that of the adjacent existing property." These questions, if passed, will have the effect of limiting densities on parcels already within the MUSA to one acre or depending on the interpretation, to the existing density (ie. one unit per forty) on land that the city will want to develop at urban densities (3.4 units per acre), Depending upon the location of sca~ered larger lots in Ramsey, this amendment could severely limit the city's ability to extend sewer within its MUSA since lot sizes of one acre are generally not economically seWered. The provision for a traffic analysis is commonly used for la. rge r~idenfial developments, the key provision ia "signifioantly increase the existing U'affic". Without defining "sig"nficantly increase", there is considerable discretion to limit densities in the proposed subdivision. I I I I I I I I