1998 Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

612-3386838 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 788 P04 JUN 23 '98 15:16j1 e e 2. Rural Residential Densities The plans that have been prepared thus far include a range of densities in the rural area that is not consistent with regional growth policy. What will the reaction likely be in response to this suggestion? The Met Council staff indicated that the area north of Trott Brook should continue to be of a permanent rural character, which they have esta~lished as policy to be 1 unit per 10 acres or "4 per 40". At densities of 1 unit per 1 0 acres, a minimum requirement would be that the City has a monitoring and inspection program for private septic systems. At densities of 1 unit per 5 acres, which the consultants have proposed for the area between the MUSA and Trott Brook, it is extremely important for the septic and well monitoring and inspection programs. The ] unit per 5 acre density could have a negative affect on the City's ability to gain future regional funding assistance for programs like ISTEA because it is not consistent with regional growth policy. A gap in policy exists between the urban area with densities of 3 units per acre and permanent rural areas where densities are to be 1 unit per 10 acres. Met Council staff acknowledged that there would likely be no future urban reserve area in the northern portion of Ramsey because of the pattern of existing development and subdivision of vacant land. This pattern might provide mitigating circumstances that would allow for densities less than 1 per 10 in the permanent rural area. They also recognized that all the area north of the MUSA line would be penn anent rural but that the areas north and south of Trott Brook should be treated differently ba,>ed on existing development patterns, natural resource patterns and soil conditions. Met Council staff indicated that a prerequisite to any consideration ofpennitting Ramsey to plan for densities of less than 1 per 10 in the unsewered portion of the City south of Trott Brook would be adoption and implementation of an appropriate on-site systems monitoring and management progI"'.un. It wac; felt that there is a need to educate the community on the need for on-site septic system inspections, possibly through use of the materials that the Metropolitan Council has available and staff resources. It was encouraged that the City meet with Judy Sventek from the Metropolitan Council to discuss surface water management practices. 3. Afuture crossing of the Mississippi River There is strong public support for a future crossing of the Mississippi River. Will the Met Council support a new bridge crossing the Mississippi River? It is likely that the Met Council will not support a crossing of the Mississippi River within the next 20 years for a couple of reasons. Funding for transportation improvements have been focused on the Highway 610 improvements. Highway 610 is the priority. A desired affect of this new roadway across northern Hennepin County is that traffic from Sherburn County that would normally use Highway 10 in route to the metro area would be diverted. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Critical Area program highly discourage additional crossings. It is likely that public pressures will not allow such a crossing (i.e. the St. Croix river bridge issue). If the City were to include a bridge crossing in the plan and indicate that this bridge is not likely to occur within the life of this plan and until all possible alternatives have been exhausted, it may be acceptable by the Met Council. Page 2 of3 123 Nonh Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 phone (612)-338-0800 fax (612)-338-6838