Laserfiche WebLink
1 At the last City Council meeting,Chair Pederson addressed the City Council and requested from the two <br /> 2 members who would not vote to approve the updated Comprehensive Plans to identify their specific <br /> 3 concerns.While Councilor Akerson has indicated that he has not had time to read the plan and opposes <br /> 4 all of it except for the introduction,Councilor Ryan provided six specific points of concern. <br /> 5 1. No provision for development along bypass <br /> 6 2. Park plan does not address a ball park <br /> 7 3. Same action items in multiple locations <br /> 8 4. Americans love autos—we can't change that mentality, social engineering <br /> 9 5. Plan is schizophrenic, we want rural character but then put a highway through the rural area <br /> 10 6. We are making it less likely that people will come to town <br /> 11 The following responses are provided for discussion purposes. Note that the Comprehensive Plan <br /> 12 requires a 4/5ths vote to approve. <br /> 13 1. No provision for devSI#pment along bypass <br /> 14 The Comprehensive Plan doe anticipate development along the alternate route.The Future Land Use <br /> 15 Plan (page 49)contemplates a mixture of commercial, industrial,forestry and agriculture along the <br /> 16 corridor.While it is true that the plan does not provide for strip development along the corridor,with <br /> 17 frontage roads and utilities, it is not true to say that there are no provisions for development. <br /> 18 The City Council adopted a resolution indicating that there would be no extension of utilities to the <br /> 19 alternate route alignment.There were many reasons cited, but primarily because it would be cost <br /> 20 prohibitive and the public's return on the investment was found to be negative,even under the best <br /> 21 development scenario. <br /> 22 It would not be appropriate for the Planning Commission to plan for strip commercial development <br /> 23 along the corridor when the City Council has indicated that it will not happen. If the Council would like <br /> 24 to provide different guidance to the Planning Commission, it should adopt a different resolution. <br /> 25 2. Park plan does not address a ball park <br /> 26 "Ball fields" are mentioned on page 13 as a community asset and "baseball" is listed as an "opportunity" <br /> 27 in Appendix A.The Comprehensive Plan does not mention the need for additional ballfields. <br /> 28 In all of the public meetings that were held on the Comprehensive Plan and all of the public input that <br /> 29 was received, nobody mentioned a need for an additional ball park. If Councilor Ryan would like to see <br /> 30 an additional ball park constructed, it is relatively easy to add a strategy that would have the City Parks <br /> 31 Commission make this a priority. <br /> 32 This is a simple amendment to make and does not seem to warrant voting against the entire plan. <br /> 33 3. Same action items in multiple locations <br /> 34 This was done intentionally and reinforces the idea that many of the strategies being adopted are meant <br /> 35 to address multiple goals and objectives. Maximizing the value of the city's actions is exactly the type of <br /> 36 guidance that a Comprehensive Plan is supposed to provide. <br /> 1 <br />