|
EXCERPT OF COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 25, 2001
<br />Again, you guys, maybe you're knowing something you're not letting on. But, I really feel that you
<br />owe it to the residents and people who are concerned about this to be up front and to have all these
<br />details worked out ahead of time rather than taking the plunge and then hoping we can bandage this
<br />thing up after the fact. It's a little late to try to do that then. People are, are going to be saying, hey,
<br />you're, you're infringing on my rights here. You can't change your ordinances now. It's, it's going to
<br />cost me money. Where are we going to be when we do that? We already opened up. We already
<br />made commitments. This Plan, if nothing else, is a commitment to that level of development in the
<br />City. It is. And all somebody, anybody can come by, any Council can come by and, and ask for more
<br />MUSA and this Plan would drive it. This map drives a need for more than 359 acres.
<br />Now, 359 acres in itself is an overage because we have over 400 acres of undeveloped
<br />commercial/industrial and a land use demand in the Comp Plan of 200 acres. Twenty acres a year
<br />times ten years. So, for the year 2010, we need 200 acres. We've got 400 right now, over 400 right
<br />now. That's 200 acres out of the 359 that are overage. In addition to that, there's a 19 percent
<br />overage. In addition to that we have, what, two years of homes in the �-s that weren't entered into
<br />the calculations? If you add that all up, we had a land use of 56.4 ear, 564 acres for 10
<br />years and, and 550 acres vacant land in the MUSA right now. y cel 'ach other out perfectly.
<br />Add to that the fact that we are a past, or virtually past
<br />MUSA, you can't demonstrate a need for MUSA base
<br />stated in the Plan. So, if the Plan is going to be mad
<br />out of its mouth, either you're going to have to b
<br />we no longer commit to 147, and this is what w
<br />back it down.
<br />One of the things that the Comprehe
<br />plan was that the inventory, and th
<br />1999, would yield a Manageme
<br />Plan would be amended to in
<br />amended to (END OF T • E
<br />ready. And, the need for
<br />bers and these goals that are
<br />doesn't talk out of both sides of the,
<br />nt an say we no longer commit to 20,500,
<br />to give you. Or, have to take the steps to
<br />Force understood during the development of the
<br />Inventory Management Plan were being conducted in
<br />that would be appended to the Comp Plan. The Comp
<br />use, I have to rephrase that line, Comp Plan would be
<br />...to have this Plan adopte shy e end of 1998 and the timing did not allow for the Inventory and
<br />Management Plan to be wor' d into the Comprehensive Plan at that time. Now, we didn't get a
<br />Management Plan. We got a handbook for conservation development. This is a various tool. I've
<br />spoken to a number of you on the Council and it's my opinion that you know the tool is there but,
<br />umm, certainly we haven't put that tool to use. And, being one of the conditions of approval by the
<br />Task Force of that map and this Plan was that there would be further definition of the greenways and
<br />so forth with the inventory. That should be done now. The only reason it wasn't done at that time
<br />was it couldn't have been done at that time. But, certainly we've had the Plan, we've had the
<br />handbook for two years. We paid $60,000 for the inventory and the handbook and we should be
<br />putting it to use rather than moving forward this Plan and not really understanding what's going on
<br />with the inventory. The greenway system that's depicted here does not coincide with what's in the
<br />handbook. So, we're failing, we're failing.
<br />10
<br />•
<br />•
<br />
|