Laserfiche WebLink
COMMENTS ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN <br />1. Update of Commission members on City Policy Makers and Staff. <br />2. Margins are irregular and messy looking. <br />3. Some of the charts seem to duplicate information. <br />4. Page 1-1; question of "significant parcels"; how significant <br />are they. <br />5. Page 1-1; question reasoning for update of Comprehensive <br />Plan. Thought is was required by law to update Comp Plan. <br />6. Page 1-1; Question the use of the word "infill" when <br />discussing development of vacant parcels. It is a jargon <br />term which lay -persons may not be familiar with. People may <br />take it to mean infilling wetlands. <br />7. Figure 1; Major highways such as 35W and 35E should be <br />Labeled. Figure does not show Highway 10. <br />8. Page 1-1; comment that a number of sites remain undeveloped <br />as "a result of soil or water table issues". Believe better <br />stated as undeveloped because of wetland deriignation. <br />9. Page 1-3; "The Comprehensive Plan does not", this is just an <br />update of the already adopted plan and as stated later in <br />this text should be made clear here also. <br />10. Page ordering is ccafusirg. Both figures and tables should <br />each be given page numbers. <br />11. Page 2-1; Percentages of housing stock do not total to 100 <br />percent; <br />60 % single family <br />20 % multiple family <br />14 % mobile homes <br />94 <br />12. Page 2-4; feels that school should be added to statement <br />about effects of population and compositional population. <br />13. Figure 3 is referred to before Table 2, although Figure 3 is <br />placed after Table 2 and Table 3. <br />14. Page 2-4; could better define older families with grown <br />children; believes sentence is confusing. <br />15. On Tables 2 and 3 write out the words "dwelling unit" instead <br />of "DU". <br />