05-20-2004 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

City of Pequot Lakes `-- Review of Draft Comprehensive Plan by Tom Ryan and Jerry Akerson, City Council Members KEY ISSUES Community Character: 1. P. 16, Policy#3, Preserve forested gateways:Very negative tone toward commercial development. Many have forgotten that much of the"forested gateway"was planted by MNDOT in the first place. This should be reworded to require MNDOT to restore the natural /10 aesthetics of the roadway as it is developed. In addition, this language would seem to prohibit commercial development along areas most economically viable, which would hinder economic growth in the City. Development along main highways can protect rural areas by being buffers. 2. P. 17, ST Action plan#1:Again:very negative tone toward commercial development. See above note. This action is inconsistent with policy#1,"protect and enhance local business" by reducing the potential for agglomeration by businesses. Since there is relatively little downtown land available for business expansion,prohibiting businesses from developing along the premier commercial sites is very detrimental to the economic health of the City and will drive businesses to neighboring communities. 3. P. 17, ST Action#3,"Forested gateway:"Requirements are unduly burdensome on our developing city. Four lane expansion of Highway 371 causes a significant loss of the"up north"feeling in its immediate vicinity. As such,it is more important to capture a unique design in this naturally commercial zone,than to completely prohibit development in the false belief that the up north feeling can be retained in this corridor. Using the model presented in the plan,The roadway can be considered urban and developable adjacent property should be considered transition zone. 4. P. 18, MT action#2,conduct a cost-benefit analysis for projects: This is too vague. Valuable projects could be turned down in the City when some benefits are not quantifiable. We should not adopt any such requirement without significant detail about who bears each cost and who gets benefits. Private property owners'rights need to be respected and not unduly burdened by hidden City taxes. Housing 1. P.24, Paragraph 3 remove"landowners are currently making a lot of money until they can earn the highest return on resale.":This is a very negative tone. While there may be a few bad landlords,this paragraph seems to portray them all as a bad greedy bunch. I don't believe this is a prolific and chronic problem in Pequot. If you have someone specific in mind, please disclose who he or she is. Also, there is nothing wrong with maximizing an investment. Why demonize landowners for choosing to hold their property until it is the right time for them to sell? 2. P.25, Redevelopment Map:What is the basis for identifying properties as having high potential for redevelopment? This is too difficult to assess whether this map is useful in reviewing appropriateness of proposed developments or ordinance changes. Have any sites been visited?What decision points can be concluded from following this map? 3. P.27, LT action#5: Remove this action plan item. It is proposing a public referendum on all housing developments(public or private). And an even more unbelievable proposal for"no net loss"of open space requirement. Neither of these ideas is achievable in a country with private property rights. 4. General comment:the housing plan is overly focused on multi-family housing unit development. This may conflict with other goals of the plan, such as small town nature of the landscape and it ignores much of how the city has grown, namely larger lots of single family dwellings. Economic Development 1. P.41, MT Actions#3:"Create heavier restrictions for ... transient merchants..." Remove this. Most transient merchants are local residents and this would harm them and the community. Maybe it would be better to add a seasonal permit(or something like it)to accommodate