My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06.01 - CSAH 11
Laserfiche
>
City Council (Permanent)
>
Agenda Packets (Permanent)
>
2012
>
04-03-2012 Council Meeting
>
06.01 - CSAH 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/7/2014 3:43:58 PM
Creation date
12/17/2013 3:06:17 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
f. Other? <br />Again, see the first half of this memo. <br />6. How is the City going to prevent land use changes around the interchange as council members <br />and planning commission staff changes? <br />This question seems to be based on a number of incorrect assumptions. First, the City is not in the <br />business of "preventing" land use changes. To state otherwise is a misnomer. <br />Second, there is an underlying assumption in the question that somehow the City's approach to this <br />corridor will not withstand future scrutiny, that a future Council will take a different course of action. <br />This seems to be based on the belief that strip highway development, complete with frontage roads and <br />the extension of sewer and water utilities, is somehow the natural order of municipal development. <br />The study group should be clear on what the City of Pequot Lakes has done. The City has analyzed the <br />cost of running utilities to the alternate alignment. Just that expense alone — not even including the cost <br />for frontage roads and further extension of utilities — cannot be justified by any cost/benefit analysis <br />performed. The City's cost for this style of development far exceeds anything the taxpayers of Pequot <br />Lakes can hope to receive back in terms of additional tax revenue. <br />Based on that finding, the City opted not to pay the millions of dollars to extend the utilities to the new <br />alignment and has elected not to proactively "up-zone" properties for more intensive use. <br />To be clear; there is nothing in the City's approach that prohibits development along the new TH 371. <br />The only thing that makes Pequot Lakes different from the other communities along the corridor is that <br />we have chosen not to pass large tax increases onto our residents and business owners — either today or <br />in the future — to subsidize development along the highway. <br />7. Should the City be planning for qrowth around the new interchange? <br />The City has planned for growth around the new interchange. The development pattern is an extension <br />of the downtown pattern, which is a mere block away. <br />Again, there appears to be an assumption that the City should be planning for highway-oriented <br />development such as a gas station or a fast food stop. Even if the City did not already have existing <br />convenience stores and restaurants that we value, there is little to be gained financially in an approach <br />that would have the City subsidize that style of development in that location. <br />8. What other plans does the City have for accommodating the bypass? <br />We're not sure what is being asked with this question. <br />9. If not now, when does the City feel is the appropriate time to plan for these improvements? <br />The City of Pequot Lakes has planned extensively for the rerouting of TH 371. Again, the question seems <br />to be assuming that the City should be planning for a specific style of development. We have studied <br />what other communities along the corridor have done and found it to be financially unproductive for <br />WWW.COMMUNITYGROWTH.COM WWW.STRONGTOWNS.ORG <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.