Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />2001 Comprehensive Plan <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Is in balance' ~tb ~strucntebd~lservices <br />Minimizes iintia, o~ existing:develOpment (cost, safety, traffic impacts) <br />Is consistentwp.tH th~natura1l'esour~base (water, wetlands, and trees) <br /> <br />Issue 2 - DensitY Of~()fJulation - The Focus Group postulated a solution <br />which includes the~dllo",ing elements: <br />· Overall densit~ iti. ~areas in the range of one unit per two to five- <br />acres (severa111Cenados to be evaluated including gross density with and <br />without wetlan~s~. . <br />· Minimum rutall()ts~e: based on a sustainable lot size for septic <br />systems. .... . <br />· Density shouldtbe reJative to what is next door in all instances where <br />future devel<>p$e.Jlf~ay occur adjacent to existing large lot <br />development. .~ '1 .' <br />· Urban densitieS: allowable within MVSA <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Issue 3 - Housi. \Dit~rsity - The Focus 'Group agreed on the following <br />solution: ' , " . <br />· Diversity is ok~y~ftlJ.e transitionlblending principle is adhered to which <br />makes new devbl~pt#ent consistent with existing development. <br />· Home sizeand~o,st diversity sholl,ld be allowed. <br />· No mobile homjes.shpUld be allowed. <br />· Minimum homcP size'Wlth garages should be required. <br /> <br />Issue 4 - MUSA ~xpa~sion -The ~ocus Group.unanimously supported the <br />following: i ' <br />· MUSA expansipnis ~cceptable for cotnmercial and industrial <br />development <br />· MUSA expansi~nsh~u1d not create COsts for existing rural residential <br />owners unless t\tey '"!'~t servipes. ., ' <br />· Generally, MU~Aexpansion is acceptable westerly along Highway 10. <br /> <br />The Focus Group cpuld f1()t agreeuIJani,!,ously with the following: <br /> <br />· MUSA expansi~niallwwable for petitioners who want services and are <br />adjacent to the :tt1WS4~oundary. <br />· Support of a plaplling;ratherthan referendum approach for MUSA <br />expansion. ' <br /> <br />'" '-. ,t.. . ~ <br />Issue 5 - Individ~a.. P~()perty Wghts.- While everyone agreed that both <br />residents and lando$ers:~ave rights, there was no resolution of this issue. <br /> <br />.Issue 6 - Par~,~~~J.1f_tion, 1'ratlls,atndOpen Spatce - This does not <br />: represent an issue,h~wev'~; the F09usGrouprecommends as follows: <br />. · More emphasis thoul4be placed on open space in rural areas. <br />· More emphasis ~h9uld~e placed On utban active parks in urban areas. <br />~- :". .U <br />· All parks shoqlcJinttijerequirec:ltoseJ:"\!e all purposes'(active athletic <br />uses should be clu~ei~d into larger parks). <br /> <br />2001 Ramsey Comprehensive Plan <br /> <br />Page 111-15 <br />