Comp Plan 1974-1977 FILE #1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5. Full Central As may be required by massive contamination or septic Public Sewer failure. System Although 'this approach may not be specifically applicable for Ramsey, the basic concept of closely monitoring the situation and immediately weeding out the prob- lems would be appropriate for the City. The City may even need to consider con- demning individual dwellings whose sewage disposal systems cannot feasibly be made to operate within acceptable standards. III. FINDINGS ~ND CONCLUSIONS Ramsey's proposed plan amendment consists of an "Urban Planning District Report". The amendment is not a complete comprehensive plan but does establish very basic de- velopment policies for the City which have been reviewed only for adequacy and consis- tency with the Metropolitan Development Framework policies and Metropolitan System Plans. 2. Metropolitan Council review of this ~roposed amendment will not exempt the City of Ramsey from responsibilities established by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. 3. Ramsey's proposed Urban Service Area is qenerally consistent with the Development Frame- work with the following exceptions: a. The City's Urban Service Area incorporates more developable land than needed according to the Development Framework. The size of the City's' Urban Service A~ea should be reassessed after the City ~i~es revised Council forecasts. b. The City plans to rezone the Urban Service Area for urban development immediately. This would be premature because it is prior to the planned expansion of the MUSA (1981-90) and the availability of metropolitan sewer service (1981 at the very earliest). Some interim zoning is needed. c. The Urban Service Area should be subdivided into five-year planning areas. Urban Development should be coordinated with the provision of services to these planning areas and not permitted prior to availability of urban services. 4. Ramsey's proposed ~ural Service Area is generally consistent %~ith the Development Frame- work. 5. Ramsey's proposed Transition Area is not consistent with the Development Framework. because it would foster continued extensive development at 2% acre densities which is clearly urban in character. ~he Transition Area should be incorporated as part of the Rural Service Area and re~e~~ ~6~dingly. ' .... 6. The City has reserved 160 acres for development of a major retail shopping center while the Development Framework has not indicated any location in Ramsey as a potential Major Diversified Center. The Minnesota ~ighway Department has also indicated that any major shopping facility at this location would tax the capacity of the highway system. The City's transportation assumptions are not entirely consistent with Anoka County plans. The City's plan is premised on construction of a Rum River bridge at an early date (within 5 years) whil~ .the.Anoka County Highway Department has not yet scheduled such construction and has indicated that the bridge will not be built for at least 10 years. 8, The City's Waste Management assumptions are not entirely consistent with the Council's Waste Management Policy Plan. a. The City assumes a metropolitan sewer service outlet near its border and TH 47 _ while no suc~ ou_tl~e,t i~ currently.provided in the_Was, re M~naqement Poli~y Plan _ or Development Program. IV. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Ramsey Comprehensive Plan Amendment be found inconsistent with the Metropolitan Development Framework until the issues in this review are resolved. It should be noted, however, that the concepts of an urban and rural service area are consistent with metropolitan planning. It is further recommended that the City of Ramsey use the comments in this review as a basis for the further planning required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act.