8.1. SR 11-19-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

these priorities; the Task Force sees resources (money, time), property owner and political will as equal drivers to these priorities. The intention behind this section is to outline projects that can be completed early, generating interest and momentum, which will help more resource intensive projects as they become prudent. Part IV: Appendix. This section includes the SWOT analysis, the sketches associated with the 2006 planning process, the received written public comments, and a place holder for the resolution approving the plan. Key changes from earlier draft. Following the public comment period, some changes were made in response to comments received. These changes include: • Adding the historic context study to the relevant studies in Part I. This background information is important to the users of the document as they take on the strategies suggested. • A number of people commented on the size of the downtown, and their belief that the downtown area must grow in size to accommodate the activities sought. The Task Force agreed, increasing and reintroducing the core downtown development patterns to a 2 block area north of Highway 10. Comments not incorporated. The Task Force received a number of comments from interested parties that did not compel a change to the plan. Among them: • The plan maintains a goal to establish a historic preservation district, although the Task Force received some strongly worded comments from impacted residents noting their displeasure with this idea. The reference remains to allow the Historic Preservation Commission to further explore the issue with the neighborhood as a whole. If the neighborhood does not wish for a Historic Preservation District after information has been presented, it is understood that the Historic Preservation and City Council will not continue. • The plan does not show all of the impacts to area properties brought by Highway 10 construction. While the plan removes the buildings that will be lost to construction, the plan does not illustrate other impacts adequately, in the view of those commenting. Unfortunately, these impacts are not adequately known to develop meaningful responses. As more information is learned, modifications to the plan are expected. FINANCIAL IMPACT None ATTACHMENTS ■ Draft Mississippi Connections plan, prepared by the Downtown Task Force. Action Motion by Second by Vote Follow Up N: \Departments \Community Development \Planning \Projects \Downtown Plan 2011 \SR to CC a Mississippi Connections pg. 2