Laserfiche WebLink
Ramsey3 Final Report <br />Grant No. 05-1237 <br />City of Ramsey <br />Create a checklist of the specific core objectives <br />The next task became to refine these value statements into specific checklist. The group was able to take <br />this quite far, but in the end, we ended up designating a smaller group of staff, Dan Markel, and Steering <br />Committee member Will Thompsen (who. has considerable experience with. city planning) to refine the <br />vision statements into a checklist. <br />Create and Refine a City Vision Statement <br />The group also agreed on a vision statement for the City. While it is still in the process of final <br />wordsinithing, it reads:. <br />Without compromising private property rights and the needs of future generations, Ramsey. <br />will evolve through citizen driven, collaborative processes that respect the balance and <br />connectivity between its unique urban, rural and natural environments. <br />This statement is supplemented by a list of supporting values that also are included in the Appendix. <br />Explore Alternative Zoning Practices <br />Dan Marckel guided.the group through this part of the process, outlining the alternatives available and <br />their strengths and weaknesses. The components and vision statement served to focus the discussion, <br />while the evaluation process will assist City staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council in future <br />land use policy decisions. <br />Marckel brought the participants a variety of examples of current practices in the Twin Cities region and <br />elsewhere. He began with the Euclidean zoning that has governed city codes for more than three <br />generations, then explained some of the alternatives that have emerged in recent years. including Smart <br />Growth, the New Urbanism, Formed-Based Codes, and the points system used by cities such as Maple <br />Grove. Marckel outlined what analysts have seen as the strengths and weaknesses of each method, doing <br />so in such away that did not bias the presentation towards one method or another. <br />The Work Group then discussed what they saw as the strengths and weaknesses of each method. The <br />results of this discussion are summarized in the following table. <br />-18- <br />-209- <br />