http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2014/04/21/opinion/guest_column/01column_04-21-14.txt#.U1eo9CxOWM8
After reading the recent columns about PlanCheyenne and the misinformation contained therein, I wanted to inform the public about the amendments the Laramie County Commission made.
Specifically, I want to address how they relate to historic preservation; parks, integrated trails and open spaces; pedestrian-friendly streets; urban sprawl; affordable housing and design principles; and public involvement.
First, this was supposed to be an update to the 2006 version of PlanCheyenne. In some instances, the update went beyond the intended scope while, in others, it didn’t go far enough, which consequently resulted in several amendments.
It should be noted here that, although over 100 amendments were made, a lot of them were duplicitous due to the structure of PlanCheyenne. The document is so large and cumbersome that it reiterates itself in multiple places and consequently requires that the same amendment be repeatedly made.
For example, amendments 9 through 19 to the Transportation Plan are the same amendments verbatim to those made earlier in the Community Plan.
Furthermore, the amendments offered at the hearing were well considered, based on public testimony at the Planning Commission hearing and comments by Laramie County residents.
Contrary to statements within the columns, these people are not anti-planners and, in fact, consider planning to be an integral part of growth and development.
In regard to historic preservation, the amendments that were made were those offered directly by a member of the Historic Preservation Board.
We didn’t “discourage historic preservation” as stated in the column. Rather, we aligned PlanCheyenne to the mission and goals of the very organization responsible for implementing preservation.
Secondly, contrary to assertions made in the columns, the commission is supportive of parks, integrated trails and open spaces. For example, we struck language that would allow school playgrounds to suffice as parks because the former is an inadequate substitute for the latter.
There are many other examples throughout PlanCheyenne of our commitment to parks, open spaces and trails, including, but not limited to: Bicycle and Pedestrian (p. 30-31), Greater Cheyenne Greenway (p. 33) and Open Space/Greenway Corridor (p. 54).
Furthermore, the premise of Foundation 6 in PlanCheyenne is to create a “legacy of parks, open spaces and trails.”
Third, the commission supports pedestrian-friendly streets. The commission did elect to retain the 2006 PlanCheyenne definition of complete streets (multi-modal; multiple modes of transportation) in lieu of the proposed definition.
As such, the amended plan states: “The community will design and construct arterial and collector streets to be multi-modal by providing travel lanes for automobiles, bikes, buses, bike lanes, and sidewalks. Application of the Complete Streets policy will be limited to minor arterials and collectors so that the design focus for principal arterial streets remains efficient mobility.”
But the commission removed language found in Policy 4.2.B that would have removed and/or narrowed driving lines to install or expand sharrows (shared lane marking utilized when bicyclists and cars share the travel lane), bike paths and wider sidewalks.
In addition, we chose to remove the pedestrian coordinator that the plan stipulated.
Fourth, the sprawl around the city is a direct result of the city’s policies. The city’s decision not to extend water and sewer service even within the Urban Service Boundaries forces the county to develop ranchettes to comply with the State Engineer’s Office recommendation of eight acres per lot and Laramie County Health Department requirements for small wastewater systems of at least five acres per lot.
This means that unless city water and sewer is made accessible, lot sizes for the foreseeable future will be eight acres on average.
Fifth, the commission emphasized the need for affordable housing in the community. This included adding two measures of effectiveness to monitor the availability thereof and removing design principles that would have been prohibitive thereto.
On that note, these design principles are not congruent with recent developments n whether it be varying roof lines, orientation of buildings, alley-loading garages, unified streetscape, attractive fencing, coordinated building materials and colors, location of parking, or blocks on a modified grid-pattern.
In fact, even newer developments like Saddle Ridge, Deerhaven, Harmony Meadows, South Park and The Pointe do not fully comply with the principles in PlanCheyenne.
Sixth, the commission also amended the plan to provide additional opportunities for public involvement.
Without these amendments, inclusion of the public, boards and commissions, elected and appointed officials, and city and county staff in the comprehensive review process was optional; i.e. “should” as opposed to the definitive “will.”
For that matter, public hearings weren’t even included in the five-step amendment process prior to our revisions.
Finally, it should be noted that just because something has been modified or removed from the plan does not mean that it can’t or won’t occur.
In fact, the plan as amended states, “The Future Land Use Plan does not predetermine all land uses on individual parcels and is intended to provide deference to the market to help determine which uses are needed at a given time.”
Amber Ash is a Laramie County commissioner. Email: amberash@laramiecounty.com.
After reading the recent columns about PlanCheyenne and the misinformation contained therein, I wanted to inform the public about the amendments the Laramie County Commission made.
Specifically, I want to address how they relate to historic preservation; parks, integrated trails and open spaces; pedestrian-friendly streets; urban sprawl; affordable housing and design principles; and public involvement.
First, this was supposed to be an update to the 2006 version of PlanCheyenne. In some instances, the update went beyond the intended scope while, in others, it didn’t go far enough, which consequently resulted in several amendments.
It should be noted here that, although over 100 amendments were made, a lot of them were duplicitous due to the structure of PlanCheyenne. The document is so large and cumbersome that it reiterates itself in multiple places and consequently requires that the same amendment be repeatedly made.
For example, amendments 9 through 19 to the Transportation Plan are the same amendments verbatim to those made earlier in the Community Plan.
Furthermore, the amendments offered at the hearing were well considered, based on public testimony at the Planning Commission hearing and comments by Laramie County residents.
Contrary to statements within the columns, these people are not anti-planners and, in fact, consider planning to be an integral part of growth and development.
In regard to historic preservation, the amendments that were made were those offered directly by a member of the Historic Preservation Board.
We didn’t “discourage historic preservation” as stated in the column. Rather, we aligned PlanCheyenne to the mission and goals of the very organization responsible for implementing preservation.
Secondly, contrary to assertions made in the columns, the commission is supportive of parks, integrated trails and open spaces. For example, we struck language that would allow school playgrounds to suffice as parks because the former is an inadequate substitute for the latter.
There are many other examples throughout PlanCheyenne of our commitment to parks, open spaces and trails, including, but not limited to: Bicycle and Pedestrian (p. 30-31), Greater Cheyenne Greenway (p. 33) and Open Space/Greenway Corridor (p. 54).
Furthermore, the premise of Foundation 6 in PlanCheyenne is to create a “legacy of parks, open spaces and trails.”
Third, the commission supports pedestrian-friendly streets. The commission did elect to retain the 2006 PlanCheyenne definition of complete streets (multi-modal; multiple modes of transportation) in lieu of the proposed definition.
As such, the amended plan states: “The community will design and construct arterial and collector streets to be multi-modal by providing travel lanes for automobiles, bikes, buses, bike lanes, and sidewalks. Application of the Complete Streets policy will be limited to minor arterials and collectors so that the design focus for principal arterial streets remains efficient mobility.”
But the commission removed language found in Policy 4.2.B that would have removed and/or narrowed driving lines to install or expand sharrows (shared lane marking utilized when bicyclists and cars share the travel lane), bike paths and wider sidewalks.
In addition, we chose to remove the pedestrian coordinator that the plan stipulated.
Fourth, the sprawl around the city is a direct result of the city’s policies. The city’s decision not to extend water and sewer service even within the Urban Service Boundaries forces the county to develop ranchettes to comply with the State Engineer’s Office recommendation of eight acres per lot and Laramie County Health Department requirements for small wastewater systems of at least five acres per lot.
This means that unless city water and sewer is made accessible, lot sizes for the foreseeable future will be eight acres on average.
Fifth, the commission emphasized the need for affordable housing in the community. This included adding two measures of effectiveness to monitor the availability thereof and removing design principles that would have been prohibitive thereto.
On that note, these design principles are not congruent with recent developments n whether it be varying roof lines, orientation of buildings, alley-loading garages, unified streetscape, attractive fencing, coordinated building materials and colors, location of parking, or blocks on a modified grid-pattern.
In fact, even newer developments like Saddle Ridge, Deerhaven, Harmony Meadows, South Park and The Pointe do not fully comply with the principles in PlanCheyenne.
Sixth, the commission also amended the plan to provide additional opportunities for public involvement.
Without these amendments, inclusion of the public, boards and commissions, elected and appointed officials, and city and county staff in the comprehensive review process was optional; i.e. “should” as opposed to the definitive “will.”
For that matter, public hearings weren’t even included in the five-step amendment process prior to our revisions.
Finally, it should be noted that just because something has been modified or removed from the plan does not mean that it can’t or won’t occur.
In fact, the plan as amended states, “The Future Land Use Plan does not predetermine all land uses on individual parcels and is intended to provide deference to the market to help determine which uses are needed at a given time.”
Amber Ash is a Laramie County commissioner. Email: amberash@laramiecounty.com.
Published on: Sunday, Apr 20, 2014 - 11:40:55 pm MDT
No comments:
Post a Comment