Laserfiche WebLink
-8- , <br /> <br />In brief, the City of Ramsey's proposed comprehensive <br />plan amendment designated an urban service area, <br />transition area and rural service area. The urban <br />service area would permit urban density development <br />and be served by metropolitan sewers. The transition <br />area which would include most of the existing <br />development in the city would establish a 2.5 acre <br />minimum lot size. The rural service area would require <br />a minimum lot size of 5 acres and a density capacity of <br />four units per 40 acres or a total of 64 units per <br />section. Since then the rural service area has been <br />rezoned to 2.5 acre minimum lot sizes. <br /> <br />Among the several findings in the May, 1977 review the <br />Metropolitan Council concluded that (1) the developable <br />land area included in the urban service area is more <br /> than needed according to the Development Framework, and <br /> (2) the transition area is not consistent with the <br />.Development Framework because it would foster extensive <br />development at 2.5 acre urban densities. In effect the <br />transition, area would be competing for the development, <br />services and service dollars needed for the urban <br />service area. The proposed rural service' area was <br />found to be generally consistent with the Development <br />Framework. The Council stated that the comprehensive <br />plan amendment would be inconsistent with the <br />Development Framework until the issues are resolved and <br />that the City of Ramsey use the comments as a.basis for <br />the planning required by the Metropolitan Land Planning <br />Act. <br /> <br />5. Compatibility with other Critical Area plans <br /> <br />The City of Coon Rapids has indicated that there are no <br />serious conflicts between the plans of the two <br />communities. No other community comments were <br />received. - <br /> <br />Regulations <br /> <br />The proposed "environmental protection ordinance" takes a <br />comprehensive approach to reviewing and 9pproving river <br />corridor development. The ordinance requires application <br />for an "environmental permit" before any development is <br />allowed to begin in the Critical Area. The permit is <br />effectively a site plan ordinance, requiring-among other <br />things-information On topography and hydrology including <br />drainage, soils, finished grade, vegetation and proposed <br />drainage and erosio~and sedimentation control plans. The <br />ordinance also contains an array of specific standards <br />designed to protect wetlands and other natural resources. <br /> <br />Standards are lacking or need expansion in several instances <br />in the ordinance. There is no specific standard regarding <br />the rate of runoff to be maintained as development occurs or <br />any explicit standard for erosion control during <br />construction. Vegetative management standards should be <br />revised to reflect the revised plan policies as noted <br /> <br /> <br />