Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />;~ <br />Ii <br /> <br />; ~' <br /> <br />2001 Comprehensive Plan <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, __, d.. -. ... .. <br /> <br />~';\) . .<";"f .<i' <br />The option to.... ~.".F .ti.~.'..'an..:. -.'.'.c.". entralP. at.' .'.-.k s~.'.-. 'i,.U... ld b.e pr. otedted, as should the <br />expansion cap+i)itiis:;of all of~e City's parks. <br />Parks shoul. dbo.,. tt b<< able to growan.<i change to accommodate changing <br />demographics tn' ~~bers o~resid~ts. <br />Design and 19cftfn 'pi' trails s~oyld~e based on their use. <br />Should look atf.mpo~ties t6 p~eseJ?Ve Openspaceand the urban forest. <br />,-/",' .' ; - - -- ~ ..", . <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Issue 7 - Prote helaurall4ifes Ie -It was agreed that the issue of <br />rural/urban com~atb~itjf.as a1readih~~ addressed with the resolution of <br />the above issues." ~. " <br /> <br />3.. Other issues <br />TIle focus group also ,,"scus$ed other isspesan.d concluded)that it supported the <br />following: C <br /> <br />· An improvedMi~sisliippi River Crossing -but there may be issues <br />related to the-1ct,io*er a new bridg~;, The. community survey by <br />Decision ResOlt'ts ~pports anew Iy,lississlppi River Bridge Crossing. <br />· Improvements ~t d~inish traffic ctmgestion. <br />· Planned cOmIDfrciial.Juid industrial growth in the Highway 10 corridor. <br /> <br />4. City Charter . .._'.. <br /> <br />The issues in Ramsey a;o in~lude the m~04by which development is regulated <br />by'the City's Charter. lR!c~tamendn1ents'to the City's Charter were made in <br />attempt to control urb6n; de$1sities w~thit1t,l1e MUSAin order to protect the <br />". .,.value and quality~ofHre... "of e~isti1:lg. lower density neighborhoods. <br />Although somewhat Co~~ovfrsial, thechart~famendments.;created lengthy, but <br />valuable discussions (aqa~o~iiland regiopal~~vel) about urQan development and <br />its i.impacts on existing.,... JlumJ..o. :'" .~.:.sidential.... de,.v. el.o,;.',pme.nt. ",The focus gr...ou. p addressed <br />man.y of the issues that 1!P.~ c}jf.rter amepdmeD,~aut}1ors havetaised although it did <br />not directly address the ~ihr .~harter asanissu.e. <br /> <br />5. Conclusions <br />.-c. -.. > <br />Th~ issues resolutionpr~c~ss.!~as extrem~ly~fficu1t for all parties for a number <br />of reasons. There is~t~trustofgovetI1ment, especially the Metropolitan <br />COFcil. Some memhF~qf~he fOCllS grQYP want to defy regional growth <br />mapagement policies. ,file' '~etropolitan C~unci1imposed, a minimum rural <br />residential density limitbft-on~unit perlO'78Ct"eS, tb,us forcing urban densities into <br />areas that may be bette~ 'tvt~ped at1'ural ~ep.sitiesor something more closely <br />approximating the surrCPUf1~g exist~gde,,~lopment. SOllIe llIembers of the <br />focus group felt the CiW cC~1UJ9t be trllsted.t,o make .decisions regarding urban <br />gro~h based on pastptr(ord.lance, th~sJ1ec~ssitating a referendum and charter <br />amendments. Many o~trs. fe~ the Cityjhds d~J1e a fme job. <br /> <br />2001 Ramsey Comprehensive Plan <br /> <br />Page III-I6 <br />