My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10 - P & Z Admin Report
Laserfiche
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
2012
>
02-16-2012 Planning Commission Meeting
>
10 - P & Z Admin Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2016 12:21:18 PM
Creation date
4/29/2016 12:21:15 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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).
View images
View plain text
C®MMUXITY <br /> C-32rRONVT <br /> INSTITUTE <br /> Toll Free 866.900.3064 1 Fax 866.924.1928 <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> Date: February 1, 2012 <br /> To: Mayor and City Council <br /> Cc: Planning Commission <br /> Re: Comprehensive Plan <br /> At the last City Council meeting, Chair Pederson addressed the City Council and requested from those <br /> members who would not vote to approve the updated Comprehensive Plans to identify their specific <br /> concerns.Councilor Ryan provided the following six points of concern,which we address here and <br /> would like to see discussed at the upcoming Council meeting: <br /> • No provision for development along bypass <br /> • Park plan does not address a ball park <br /> • Same action items in multiple locations <br /> • Americans love autos—we can't change that mentality, social engineering <br /> • Plan is contradictory we want rural character but then put a highway through the rural area <br /> • We are making it less likely that people will come to town <br /> The following responses are provided for discussion purposes. Note that the Comprehensive Plan <br /> requires a 4/5ths vote to approve.We would like to address the concerns of Council members so that <br /> we can get the plan approved. <br /> 1. No provision for development along bypass <br /> The Comprehensive Plan does call for development along the alternate route.The Future Land Use Plan <br /> (page 49) contemplates a mixture of commercial, industrial,forestry and agriculture along the corridor. <br /> While it is true that the plan does not provide for strip commercial development along the corridor,with <br /> frontage roads and utilities, it is not true to say that there are no provisions for development. <br /> The City Council adopted a resolution indicating that there would be no extension of utilities to the <br /> alternate route alignment.There were many reasons cited, but primarily because it would be cost <br /> prohibitive and the public's return on the investment was found to be negative, even under the best <br /> WWW.COMMUNITYGROWTH.COM I WWW.STRONGTOWNs.ORG <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.