Laserfiche WebLink
showed the differences which would need to be agreed upon. She pointed out existing shopping <br />nodes, the river corridors, existing parks and recreation areas, the future roadways, the scenic <br />roadways, transitional edges, and future trail corridors, as elements that are the same on both <br />concepts. The elements that differ between the two concepts are a future Mississippi River <br />crossing, urban services, rural patterns, environmental protection, and the town center idea. <br />Concept A is a more conservative view of growth and is more consistent with the regional <br />growth policy set by the Metropolitan Council. Concept B would allow for more growth in the <br />rural area and would also accommodate more urban services expansion <br /> <br />Mr. Scheib stated the following: Generally, it's a policy of the City of Ramsey to 1) allow for <br />higher density development within the MUSA; 2) blend uses - urban/rural; 3) ensure a variety <br />of housing - e.g., life-cycle housing; 4) facilitates redevelopment of blighted and under <br />developed commercial/industrial areas; 5) discourage through traffic into neighborhood streets; <br />6) apply design and site plans for designated scenic roadways; 7) promote transit mode; 8) <br />contribute on-going discussion among government levels regarding a bridge crossing; 9) <br />provide opportunity for neighborhoods to be linked by trails - pedestrian, horse, etc.; 10) lack of <br />trust in government - promote public input; and 11) encourage communication about Highway <br />#10 corridor with levels of government. Mr. Scheib reiterated that these are the general policies <br />they attributed to both concepts. More specific policies to Concept A are as follows: 1) <br />residential densities remain consistent with regional growth policies; 2) limited or no expansion <br />beyond the current MUSA line; 3) protect floodways and wetlands from development; 4) <br />encourage developers and private property owners to use environmentally sensitive design in <br />environmentally sensitive areas; and 5) limit access points to Highway #10. Mr. Scheib <br />continued with Concept B as which specifies the following: 1) Highway #10 - freeway design - <br />promote cluster development; 2) no further expansion of the MUSA beyond the 2020 MUSA <br />line; 3) densities - allow smaller lot sizes as long as they can support a septic system; 4) <br />employ extraordinary measures to protect environmental area; and 5) to allow for higher <br />density development closer to the town center area. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich noted that Concept B would protect environmental resources more than <br />Concept A and asked why they are not equal? <br /> <br />Mr. Scheib responded that some are protected and some are land rights. <br /> <br />Tim Vogt, Charter Commission, commented about the Charter amendment to expand lot sizes. <br /> <br />Mr. Scheib stated that the hope is to blend new development and current development. The <br />Charter amendment was taken into consideration and the City will abide totally. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued relating to the blend of the community. <br /> <br />Councilmember Haas Steffen stated she thought Hoisington talked about a buffer area between <br />the large and small lots in both concepts. <br /> <br />Mr. Scheib replied there is. In Concept B, with the higher density, extraordinary measures would <br />be taken to protect natural resources. <br /> <br />Comprehensive Plan Update/March 17, 1998 <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />