Laserfiche WebLink
612-3386858 HOiSINGTON KOE~LER 451 P~5 ~PR 10 '~B 12:55 <br /> <br />Fred introduced Amy Bower who presented the concepts to the public. Amy described <br />the elements that were common to both concepts and that attempt to illustrate the desired <br />vision for the future community. Amy also discussed ideas that were different on each <br />concept and that would need to be agreed upon. Amy identified the existing shopping <br />nodes, the river corridors, existing parks and recreation areas, the future roadways, the <br />scenic roadways, transitional edges and the future trail corridors as elements that are the <br />same on both Concepts A and B. She proceeded'to identify the elements that differ <br />between the two concepts such as a future Mississippi ~ver Crossing, urban services, <br />rural patterns, environmental protection and the town center idea. <br /> <br />Brad Scheib reiterated some of the key ideas and concepts and explained that the <br />boundaries identified on the concepts are not intended to be exact locations. They axe <br />conceptual lines that represent ideas. Actual implementation of such an idea would <br />require further study to determine what impact such an idea will have on the public. Brad <br />went through the handout titled "City of Ramsey Policy Ideas" explaining that discussion <br />and debate amongst these ideas will take place during the exercise. The Hoisington <br />Koegler Group then opened the floor to questions and comments regarding clarification <br />of the concepts and their ideas. Some of the major clarification items are noted below: <br /> <br />A question was raised as to what rational was used to identify rural densities of one <br />unit per ten acres on Concept A versus one unit per two to five acres on Concept B. <br />Brad Scheib indicated that Concept A shows less growth and is more consistent with <br />regional growth policy set by the Metropolitan Council. The rational for this concept <br />is that if urban services are not extended, it would be unlikely that the Metropolitan <br />Council would be willing to a~ee to a higher density in the rural area. Concept B <br />would allow for more growth in the rural area and would also accommodate more <br />urban services expansion. The rational would be that if the City expands urban <br />services to accommodate more growth and protect the Mississippi River, the <br />Metropolitan Council would be more likely to consider straying from the regional <br />growth policy. It was also noted that a range of density of one unit per two to five <br />acres was agreed upon at the focus group meetings. <br /> <br />Clarification was requested on the application of densities in the rural area. The <br />density will apply only to future development and will not include existing <br />development. Lot sizes and densities are two diiTerent calculations. The size of the <br />lot would be dependent on the ability of the site to handle septic systems and would <br />apply to an individual lot. Density applies to an overall number of units per acre <br />within an entire parcel. After much discussion clarification was reached. <br /> <br />Concern was expressed about how growth will affect the school districts' needs. Brad <br />explained that part of the initial stages of the process involved meeting with the <br />school district to determine future school needs. Although, the current plan does not <br />show a site for a future school, provisions for schools will be addressed. State law <br />requires that the school district have the opportunity to review the plan. The <br />consultants will be contacting the school to ensure that their future needs can be <br />accommodated based on the preferred alternative. <br /> <br />Concept Review Session <br /> <br />Page 2 of 6 <br /> <br />Hoisington Koegler Group, <br /> <br /> <br />