Differences in PlanCheyenne updates could hinder planning
http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2014/03/16/news/20local_03-16-14.txt#.UyYrSyxOWM8
CHEYENNE -- Both the city and the county approved updated versions of PlanCheyenne last week.
But the approval processes in the City Council and at the Laramie County Commission, which included passages of differing sets of amendments, resulted in two distinct plans.
"We do now have two plans - one that will be utilized in the city and one in the county," Mayor Rick Kaysen said.
John Shepard with the county's planning office said, "Essentially (both plans) have the same spirit and intent. We will have different printed versions of the plans with different emphasizes, and that's appropriate."
PlanCheyenne, which was first adopted in 2006, is a master plan used by the local governments to guide growth and promote sustainability in the city and parts of the county.
The plan is designed and updated by the Cheyenne Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Federal guidelines say the plan must be updated and approved by both the City Council and the County Commission every five years.
Those bodies must approve updates to the plan to be eligible for millions of dollars in federal grants, most of which are tied to transportation and infrastructure projects.
The version of the plan update approved by the commission was much more heavily amended than the one passed by the City Council.
The set of amendments approved by the commissioners included over 100 changes to the document, some of them minor and others quite significant.
One of the most significant changes to the county’s plan is the removal guidelines that establish design principles for new development.
The plan uses these principles to guide the aesthetic quality of structures like signs, landscaping, gateways and streetscapes.
“A lot of these design principles come with price tags,” Commissioner Amber Ash said.
She took the lead on the development of many of the amendments added to the county’s plan.
Critics of the design standards said they had the potential to turn the city and county in a “cookie cutter” community.
The county added language to encourage the design and construction of public structures that are “reflective of our heritage and differentiates us from other communities along the Front Range.”
The changes also removed references in the plan to government incentives and encouragement for things like public art, energy efficiency, pedestrian access and active lifestyles.
Ash said many of the amendments were developed using input from public hearings on PlanCheyenne. These gatherings routinely attracted large crowds. Many in attendance were opposed to the plan.
In general, these opponents supported many of the county’s amendments.
Ash said she developed the amendments as a way of finding “a middle ground” between hard-line opponents of PlanCheyenne and supporters who consider the document necessary for the continued growth of the city and county.
But just because she played a leading role in developing the amendments doesn’t mean Ash is a fan of all of them.
“Some of (the amendments) that are in there, I’m OK with. But some I would have liked to have taken out,” Ash said. “Did we do a good job? I don’t know. We will see.”
County Commissioner Troy Thompson said, “I don’t agree with all of (the amendments) wholeheartedly. But they aren’t deal breakers to me.”
Tom Mason, director of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, argued unsuccessfully against several of the amendments during a County Commission meeting Tuesday.
He said many of the amendments could lead to problems down the road. He cited traffic congestion as a specific problem that could be exacerbated by some of the changes.
The amendments to the plan approved by the City Council were less substantial. They mainly focused on softening some of the language to ensure that the plan serves as a policy guide rather than binding document.
“The amendments that the county did should not have direct impact on what the city’s plan is,” Kaysen said. “But we will still continue to work cooperatively (with the county) through the Metropolitan Planning Organization.”
But Kaysen did say the differing plans could make joint projects more challenging for city and county planners.
“I think it will require more discussion (between the two planning departments),” he added.
But the approval processes in the City Council and at the Laramie County Commission, which included passages of differing sets of amendments, resulted in two distinct plans.
"We do now have two plans - one that will be utilized in the city and one in the county," Mayor Rick Kaysen said.
John Shepard with the county's planning office said, "Essentially (both plans) have the same spirit and intent. We will have different printed versions of the plans with different emphasizes, and that's appropriate."
PlanCheyenne, which was first adopted in 2006, is a master plan used by the local governments to guide growth and promote sustainability in the city and parts of the county.
The plan is designed and updated by the Cheyenne Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Federal guidelines say the plan must be updated and approved by both the City Council and the County Commission every five years.
Those bodies must approve updates to the plan to be eligible for millions of dollars in federal grants, most of which are tied to transportation and infrastructure projects.
The version of the plan update approved by the commission was much more heavily amended than the one passed by the City Council.
The set of amendments approved by the commissioners included over 100 changes to the document, some of them minor and others quite significant.
One of the most significant changes to the county’s plan is the removal guidelines that establish design principles for new development.
The plan uses these principles to guide the aesthetic quality of structures like signs, landscaping, gateways and streetscapes.
“A lot of these design principles come with price tags,” Commissioner Amber Ash said.
She took the lead on the development of many of the amendments added to the county’s plan.
Critics of the design standards said they had the potential to turn the city and county in a “cookie cutter” community.
The county added language to encourage the design and construction of public structures that are “reflective of our heritage and differentiates us from other communities along the Front Range.”
The changes also removed references in the plan to government incentives and encouragement for things like public art, energy efficiency, pedestrian access and active lifestyles.
Ash said many of the amendments were developed using input from public hearings on PlanCheyenne. These gatherings routinely attracted large crowds. Many in attendance were opposed to the plan.
In general, these opponents supported many of the county’s amendments.
Ash said she developed the amendments as a way of finding “a middle ground” between hard-line opponents of PlanCheyenne and supporters who consider the document necessary for the continued growth of the city and county.
But just because she played a leading role in developing the amendments doesn’t mean Ash is a fan of all of them.
“Some of (the amendments) that are in there, I’m OK with. But some I would have liked to have taken out,” Ash said. “Did we do a good job? I don’t know. We will see.”
County Commissioner Troy Thompson said, “I don’t agree with all of (the amendments) wholeheartedly. But they aren’t deal breakers to me.”
Tom Mason, director of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, argued unsuccessfully against several of the amendments during a County Commission meeting Tuesday.
He said many of the amendments could lead to problems down the road. He cited traffic congestion as a specific problem that could be exacerbated by some of the changes.
The amendments to the plan approved by the City Council were less substantial. They mainly focused on softening some of the language to ensure that the plan serves as a policy guide rather than binding document.
“The amendments that the county did should not have direct impact on what the city’s plan is,” Kaysen said. “But we will still continue to work cooperatively (with the county) through the Metropolitan Planning Organization.”
But Kaysen did say the differing plans could make joint projects more challenging for city and county planners.
“I think it will require more discussion (between the two planning departments),” he added.
No comments:
Post a Comment