FLUM Maps (Comp Plan)

[Lynda Aird]

The large-sized updated maps requested at our February 12th meeting are now available for pick-up at Development Services. Please color and return them no later than Monday, February 23rd for our Special Called meeting on Thursday, February 25th.

 

[Gene Harris]

Dave Stewart and I came up with this marked up FLUM map with proposed land usage designations on top of the existing designations. Seemed easier and quicker to try it this way with the limited amount of time given to try and come up with a product.

 

[Dave Stewart]

It is not necessary to reinvent the wheel. Most of the crrent FLUM map needs no modification but some areas definately need to be looked at, particulary the large lakefront lots that should be rezoned to RR2.

 

[Lynda Aird]

The FLUM should be as uncomplicated as possible. Instead of "rural residential" in 3 tiers I suggest using the term "Light intensity residential" and having 2 tiers. "Civic Places," "Regional Commercial District," and "Employment & Service District" could be combined; "Scenic View & Corridor Preservation" could be eliminated (consider zoning overlay instead.) Also, the City has an ordinance intended to protect developing in transitions from one zoning category to another, is the "Neighborhood Transition" FLUM category superfluous?

 

[Gene Harris]

Here are some initial comments and mark ups I made on the draft comp plan doc.

 

[Gene Harris]

Here are some initial comments and mark ups I made on the draft comp plan doc.

Ok, file is to large so will have to try and break it up into multiple files.

 

[Gene Harris]

try this

 

[Gene Harris]

try this

four more pages

 

[Gene Harris]

Ok, I ran into a problem, now I am unable to add attachments due to "file size to large", even with just one page. Any tech genius' out there with suggestions?

 

[Gene Harris]

Going to try this again, scan 1 of comp plan with suggestion mark ups.

 

[Jeff Hewgley]

The FLUM should be as uncomplicated as possible. Instead of "rural residential" in 3 tiers I suggest using the term "Light intensity residential" and having 2 tiers. "Civic Places," "Regional Commercial District," and "Employment & Service District" could be combined; "Scenic View & Corridor Preservation" could be eliminated (consider zoning overlay instead.) Also, the City has an ordinance intended to protect developing in transitions from one zoning category to another, is the "Neighborhood Transition" FLUM category superfluous?

Lynda, your comment about "Scenic View & Corridor Preservation" being an overlay was the intended purpose for this. In the exercise Jordan provided for us, it was indicated that way. There are other overlays that could be considered as well such as for flood and wildfire risk (steep slope) areas.

Regarding the city having an ordinance to protect developing where one zoning category transitions to another... If that ordinance exists, it certainly had no effect on any requirement for buffering between the new convenience story/gas station being built on Lohman and the residences directly on the other side of Spanish Oak Dr. I think we need to double down and put this into a transition place type. I had also recommended a special place type especially for situations like this where space for buffering between existing commercial and residential zoning is limited - so we could be more explicit just for such a scenario.

As for your thoughts on combining and renaming the proposed FLUM Place Types, I will have to get back to you with more detailed feedback when I have more time. Two things in particular to keep in mind is that we want to specify density and minimum tree canopy requirements for each place type (where applicable). We don't want to inadvertently lose granularity by combining place types. Generally, the lower the density, the higher the minimum tree canopy requirement.

My last word on this for now is that I think we should be consistent with using the new phrase "place type" rather than "use category" since we are transitioning to place types with this new comp plan. One focuses on how land is used. The other focuses on how the land will be experienced by citizens.