9.2. HRSR 03-06-2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 19, 2012 - Part IV, page 11 - 1. I fully believe in the historical FEEL of the downtown area. That is more the result of the looks of the buildings (mostly brick) (design standards) and the close proximity than the actual structures themselves. 2. While the core downtown has a historical FEEL, I believe there is very little historical significance to the downtown itself. Yes, for some residents and former residents, it brings back memories (nostalgia), the future of the City is not in looking backward, it is in looking forward. Keep in mind the 1980 population was less than 7,000, in 1990 it was less than 12,000 and in 2000 it was less than 17,000. It is now about 23,000. Of the 7,000 who were here in 1980, I would guess less than half remain whether due to moving or death. So we're preserving "nostalgia" of the past for maybe 15% of our current population - a number that is ever decreasing. The Plan talks about "creating a new history." That won't occur holding onto someone else's past. 3. The Core Downtown Statement says to rehabilitate and redevelop - but it also discusses the Brick and S. Main Blocks as needing "historical rehabilitation". If those blocks are "off the table", that pretty much eliminates much of the potential redevelopment. When the Metro Plains developments were being considered, it was discussed that a Phase 2, encompassing the area from Granite Shores to the Cinema Building could be possible. Again, with proper design standards, I still see that as a viable redevelopment project. 4. The Plan doesn't really seem to discuss the viability of the businesses in the area. Having a mere "location" doesn't make the area "destination." How will the realignment of Jackson Street / King Street affect the Jackson Street buildings? What is the "hook" to get people to want to come to the downtown area - especially the core downtown? Maybe entertainment?? 5. I believe the core downtown area is too small of a commercial area. I think it should be expanded (but not extremely) but with good "historical feeling" design standards. I don't believe the current size really makes the area viable as a destination because the businesses don't complement each other well. Expanding the area will allow development of a new area the purpose of which could be better defined. 6. I'm not in favor or requiring the rehabilitation of homes that have exceeded their life expectancies. Times have changed. Energy efficiencies have improved greatly. Building materials and codes have changed. Styles have changed. Desired amenities have changed. To require someone to keep a style house favorable in the 1920s (or whatever period) is inefficient and will eventually cause blight. Yes, incentives might be possible now, but eventually, structures degrade to the point of being very cost inefficient and/or unsafe. 7. I do not favor retaining the Water Tower and will oppose the use of ANY city money to preserve it. I truly believe the effort to preserve it to this date was the result of the actions of a select few. In 2002, costs to repaint the tower were stated to be from $50,000 to $100,000. The cost to remove the tower would be less. Ownership was stated to be in ERMU and nearly all discussion went via ERMU and the HPC. Even ERMU voted to tear it down in 2002. Updates were not provided to the Council and no approval for the application for the National Register was requested of the Council. Then, just last month, it was disclosed during a budget session that it looks like the City is the actual owner and the cost to repaint would be close to $400,000. Apparently, staff new this in December or before; however, it was never mentioned to the Council. It has been stated the painting will occur only if grants are received to pay for all of it. I have no objection to that, but I will not vote to approve the use of City funds. I am also hearing (but not from information provided to the Council), apparently, there may be concerns about the structural integrity of the water tower ... the cement at its base may be degrading. 8. The section "Previous Relevant Studies" should include a full discussion about the Historical Context Study. While the Context Study is discussed a bit several sections later, it provided an actual professionally prepared and researched account of why the area is really