Laserfiche WebLink
regular merchants and then you could restrict truly transient merchants. Permitting <br /> processes should not restrict local merchants who add seasonal operations to their <br /> businesses. <br /> 2. P.41, LT actions#1. "Develop design guidelines for business..." Flexibility should be added <br /> to this guideline and a prohibition on requiring uniformity(we don't need any log siding <br /> requirements and the like,giving us a contrived up north feeling.) Our expectation would <br /> provide for very limited restrictions on signage,allowing a joining of creativity and need. This <br /> type of accommodation contributes to our"small town feel"as opposed to adopting a very <br /> restrictive big city ordinance. <br /> Natural Resources <br /> 1. Action plans general comments: <br /> • While each action plan item in itself seems useful,the cumulative effect of the 41 <br /> suggestions creates an onerous environment for landowners. [The plan suggests <br /> regulating virtually every activity on every property in the City,from putting in a dock to <br /> clearing a little area for a campfire next to the lake. IE. If my security pole light bothers <br /> someone across the field, than we should have a"night light"ordinance to stop it.] It <br /> seems like every restriction ever thought of is proposed here. Let's come back to reality. <br /> Prioritize the proposed actions. We need to agree on the most urgent problems(or <br /> highest risks)and address them as part of our ordinances. Other not so pressing <br /> suggestions can be addressed through common sense rather than law. Each new <br /> proposal should be evaluated considering the cumulative effect of the proposal on <br /> property owners.This entire area needs to have more balance.We should adopt <br /> restrictions slowly in response to actual situations or conditions. <br /> • The cost of each action plan item to the City(including development and implementation <br /> costs)should be determined and considered as part of the above-proposed prioritization. <br /> The plan should require a cost benefit analysis of each item proposed in this section. <br /> How many thousands of dollars is the City prepared to spend? <br /> Recreation <br /> 1. Add Hunting and Shooting.The plan identifies many activities available to citizens and almost <br /> completely ignores hunting and shooting as significant activities. These activities have long- <br /> standing traditions and are every bit as important(and maybe more so)as hiking and bird <br /> watching. The plan should incorporate hunting and shooting in all aspects of this section of <br /> the Plan: background, policies, and action plan. Protection of these constitutionally <br /> guaranteed rights is of utmost importance to a large portion of City residents. <br /> 2. P. 65, ST action#1, Park fee extractions: If recreation is to be of high importance,why is the <br /> burden of this dilemma born by new residents alone. The cost of new parks should be <br /> spread to all citizens in the City as part of the general levy, recognizing parks as a community <br /> asset. Simply adding to developer costs hinders growth and increases the cost of new <br /> home/business purchases for residents. Developers who design these things into their <br /> projects should be favorably treated,but to mandate park fees is not in the interest of the City <br /> as a whole. Lands to be dedicated will most likely be the least desirable and could actually <br /> cost the City more in maintenance in the long run. <br /> Transportation <br /> 1. This section should be completely reworked,removing references to the highway 371 <br /> bypass. Consideration should be made for alternative routes within the City and right of way <br /> acquisition can begin immediately. We definitely need to be more specific and add detailed <br /> designs here. <br /> 2. P. 76, MT action#4, cost/benefit analysis. Remove the requirement for ongoing maintenance <br /> of the City to be born on the adjacent landowners(for streets that are paid for privately and <br /> turned over to the City.) It should be enough for a developer to build the road to <br /> specifications. Once the road is accepted by the city, it becomes a community asset whereby <br /> everyone is entitled to drive on it and everyone is responsible for its upkeep. If you make the <br /> adjacent landowners pay entirely for ongoing maintenance, there is no reason why the road <br />