Laserfiche WebLink
<br />----.---.-.- <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Report on Comprehensive Plan Focus Group Recommendations <br />Decernber29,1997 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Issue 7 - MUSA Expansion - Should MUSA be expanded for residential development? Where <br />should it expand? Should it have to require a referendum? (Current charter requires a referendum) <br /> <br />ISSUES RESOLUTION <br /> <br />Meetings #3 and #4 focused on issues resolution. The following represents a summary of the <br />degree to which issues were or were not resolved. <br /> <br />Issue 1 - Residential Growth - Focus Group agreed on "well planned" growth having the following <br />characteristics: <br /> <br />· Blends in with existing development <br />· Is in balance with infrastructure and services <br />· Minimizes Impact on existing development (cost, safety, traffic impacts) <br />· Is consistent with a natural resource base (water, wetlands, and trees) <br /> <br />Issue 2 - Density of Population - The Focus Group postulated a solution which includes the <br />follOwing elements: <br /> <br />· Overall density in the range of one unit per two to five--acres (several scenarios to be <br />evaluated including gross density with and without wetlands). <br />· Minimum rural lot size: based on a sustainable lot size for septic systems. <br />· Density should be relative to what is next door. Even inside MUSA, at the outer edge, <br />density should be compatible and/or consistent with development adjacent to and outside <br />of MUSA <br />· Urban densities allowable within MUSA <br /> <br />Issue 3 - Housin~ Diversity - The Focus Group agreed on the following solution; <br /> <br />· Diversity is okay if the transitionlblending principle is adhered to which makes new <br />development consistent with existing development. <br />· Home size and cost diversity should be allowed. <br />· No mobilehomes should be allowed. <br />· Minimum home size with garages should be required. <br /> <br />Issue 4 - MUSA ExDansion - The Focus Group unanimouslv supported the following: <br /> <br />· MUSA expansion is acceptable for oommercial and industrial development <br />· MUSA expansion should not create costs for existing rural residential owners unless they <br />want services. <br />· Generally, MUSA expansion is acceptable westerly along Highway 10. <br /> <br />The Focus Group could not agree unanimously with the following: <br /> <br />· Expansion allowable for petitioners who want services and are adjacent to the MUSA <br />boundary. <br />· Support of a planning rather than referendum approach for MUSA expansion. <br /> <br />Eleven supported and four opposed these elements of Issues resolution. <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />1~:91 L6. 62 J3a <br /> <br />~0d L170 <br /> <br />~31930~ N019NISIOH <br /> <br />8~898~~-219 <br />