Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 21 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Comp plan OK’d by planning panel
Published Wednesday, December 17, 2008
There was still some language to work out and the motion to recommend approval became a bit wordy, but the comprehensive plan Tuesday made it past the Albert Lea Planning Commission.
After a public hearing that featured some collegial debate among a few local leaders, the seven commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the proposed comprehensive plan Tuesday night, sending it to the Albert Lea City Council for the final hurdle.
The City Council is slated to meet Monday to vote on the document that has been 18 months in the making. About 10 people attended.
During the public hearing, Albert Lea-Freeborn County Chamber of Commerce Director Randy Kehr, a chairman from the steering committee for the comprehensive plan, called on the commission to move forward with the document. He said the committee arrived at the language by consensus — not everyone got what they wanted but it had been created with large amounts of input.
Kehr said the implementation of the ideals set forth in the comp plan now rests with the elected officials.
Albert Lea Economic Development Agency Director Dan Dorman said he has concerns about making Albert Lea competitive with other areas. He said he supports the plan but has concerns about how companies considering Albert Lea might view some areas of the plan. He said the plan doesn’t show industrial areas clearly enough.
He said the April 2006 sale of the Albert Lea Golf Club to a developer, resulting in the closing and destruction of the course, is what started the ball rolling on the revision of the comp plan, which hadn’t been updated since 1970. He said an updated comp plan would not have prevented the sale of the golf course. Proper zoning would’ve been needed, too.
Dorman, a former state legislator, pointed out areas where he felt the language was in conflict with state laws. One was over the use of phosphates. He noted the language in the comp plan was more restrictive than state law presently is.
“I don’t think that’s what you mean,” he said.
He felt language on rainwater runoff was stronger than state law, too. He said he favors strong language, and it’s clear Albert Lea residents want clean water, but residents aren’t served by going beyond Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards, he said.
One spot in the comp plan mentions that new buildings in the city must connect to the sanitary sewer — which Dorman felt could inhibit growth on Plaza Street — but then another spot mentions the city would “investigate innovative solutions” for sanitary sewer needs, he said.
“I think ‘investigate’ makes some sense,” he said.
He said Page 75 sounds like the plan favors four lanes for Bridge Avenue but Page 74 sounds like it is against it.
Dorman said one area notes downtown growth and development. He asked why downtown and not other areas.
He said he hears, “It’s just a guideline, don’t worry about it,” as responses to his business-oriented questions, but he said the document calls for implementation. He said he wants it to stand on its own merits and said it is better if it can be defended.
Consultant Brad Scheib, project manager from Hoisington Koegler Group Inc., responded to Dorman’s concerns. He said “downtown” in the language on growth and development was unintentional and should reflect all areas.
On industry, he said the plan does note the existing industrial zones but it leaves flexibility for future industrial types. He said displaying industry would requiring defining industry, which would have to delineate between wide-ranging types such as smokestack factories and corporate campuses. He said the industrial areas shown are open-ended.
Scheib said he has reworded the Bridge Avenue pages many times and people have pushed both ways on the issue. He said the language isn’t so strong that it say it supports a four-lane Bridge Avenue altogether and in other areas it mentions many caveats. He said the solving of the controversy will come down to implementation.
Scheib said he would try to pin down some of the areas Dorman noted that could be in conflict with state statutes and revise the document.
Mayor Randy Erdman suggested moving the document along. He said the selling of the golf course helped get the City Council moving on the comp plan because some councilors felt it mattered. He added the first initiative to draft an updated comp plan actually goes back to the 2001 blaze at the Farmland Foods packing plant.
The mayor, whose term in office ends at the end of the month, said the comp plan revision process has been presented at service clubs, featured on KSMQ, written about in the Albert Lea Tribune, discussed on the government channel and shown on posters. He said it has been guided by the 34-member steering committee.
He called it “a process of discovery” that took four years total and said it has not been a fast-track. He said there has been a draft document ready for comments since June, implying input now is coming late.
Erdman noted that a city ordinance already requires all buildings in the city limits hook up to the city sewer.
After a short discussion on some areas City Planner Bob Graham thought were important to note, the planning commissioners began to talk about approving the plan.
“It’s a living document,” Robert Hoffman said, adding that it will need regular review.
Scheib said the best comp plans don’t collect dust. He said they have tattered edges; cities rely on them and know them well — elected officials, planning officials, staff members and everyday residents.
“Dan’s going to find a bunch more stuff as he reads it,” Scheib said.
He said each year it should be modified, perhaps at the first Planning Commission meeting of the year. He said the zoning ordinance and other city policies should be reviewed with the same scrutiny so the two are brought closer to alignment. He said he expects that to happen.
Planning Commissioner Mark Rofshus mentioned the Planning Commission should do what it can to make Dorman’s economic development job as easy as possible.
Planning Commissioner Greg Nainani said if more citizens reviewed the comp plan as well as Dorman, it naturally would be a better document. He said the job of the Albert Lea Economic Development Agency, however, is to promote economic development but within the comp plan’s vision. He said everyone likewise will work within the comp plan’s vision but also will work to reduce the conflicts between the comp plan and city regulations.
After the hearing, City Manager Victoria Simonsen said there will be annual reviews. She said one role of the new city attorney will be to revise and enforce many ordinances on the books. She said in light of the struggling U.S. economy, it makes for an easier time to implement a comp plan. It allows time to step back and prepare now for growth when the economy rebounds.
She said the comp plan revision originally had a 12-month timeline and now is at 18 months. She said the present City Council and the administration are working to get it going before the changeover in council seats that comes in 2009. She said the present council benefits from familiarity with the process and, like a legislative session in St. Paul, the present session of the City Council ends at the end of the year. The elected city officials have goals, one of which is to approve a comp plan.
Dorman said noted the concerns he brought were dated Nov. 10, so it isn’t as though he is making his comments at the last minute. He said he will know whether he was satisfied with Tuesday’s meeting when he sees the next draft.
He said he was pleased to see language that stated “on our terms” removed. He had told the steering committee last week that the wording was unfriendly to new businesses.
Mayor-elect Mike Murtaugh said he felt the comp plan has too many late revisions and additions and needs to be ready and clean before being approved.
“Given that there is nothing urgent in the plan, I would be more comfortable in allowing the public and interested parties to comment more fully on the comprehensive plan, including the appendices until the new council is seated in January,” Murtaugh said.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope they have changed the southside of Albert Lea Lake from industrial to housing. We've already spent millions to get the packinghouse off the lake, why would we zone the other end for industrial. Some said the sewage treatment plant is down there, but the plant is atleast a city block from the lake and should be covered by trees.
There are alot of expensive homes being built in that area.
I don't they want industry next to them.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is an unelected board making the decisions for the city? What happen to elected leaders doing their job?
Posted by alea (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dorman's comments not last minute, please! They are completely last minute. Consider that the steering committee has met for over a year now. Final comments and review are occurring now -- that is normal practice for a project of this magnitude. We always knew that we would have the summer to make additional comments. The plan has been posted on the city web site EVERY step of the way. Dan submits comments on 11/10? Pretty last minute, if you ask me. ALEDA did not play an active role in the comp plan steering committee process. Where was he during the normal course of the project? He was always invited. So was our new mayor. Council candidates showed up and actively participated better than either Dan Dorman or Mike Murtaugh. The way both are handling this is just plain wrong and based completely on their "late" timeframes.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is an unelected board making policy and laws? I think that should be answered first. Who gave you the right to do this. It was not the voters.
Posted by DoubleD (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wildbill,
There have been no changes made to what is referred to as the "interchange
district". In the "interchange district" industrial is one of the uses
allowed but not the only one. I can't think of an example of an industrial
use on the land near the lake but understand your concern. My preference
would be to more clearly identify the areas for industrial growth.
Alea,
The most resent draft of the plan was sent to members of the steering
committee out on 10/23/08. The City Planner's comments are dated November
6th and mine are dated November 10th. I would not call this "completely
last minute". Most of my comments submitted on November 6th are questions.
Some of which remain unanswered. That should be a concern of all. In fact,
here is the quote from the consultant "Dan's going to find a bunch more
stuff as he reads it."
Concerning ALEDA not playing an active role. Nothing could be further from
the truth. Our Assistant Director Ryan Nolander is the Co-Chair of the
Steering Committee. In addition, there are 3 voting members of our Board
and 3 ex-0fficio members of our Board. One of our Board our Board members
sent a memo with comments back in June that were reflected in the October
draft. Clearly we have been active and supportive of updating the
Comprehensive plan.
Again, my comments and question were raised over a month ago. They were
not meant to try to kill or derail the plan but were offered to improve the
plan.
It is unfortunate some that some take offense to anyone asking questions;
often labeling them as being negative. There are several steering committee
members who have concerns and questions but don't feel comfortable raising
them for this reason. Which is also why some people prefer to post
anonymously here. But if you really want to have an impact - get involved
and speak up. Adding your name to your comments here elsewhere add
credibility to your comments.
If anyone has any questions or comments feel free to post them, send me an email or call.
Dan Dorman
373-3930
dandorman@growalbertlea.com
Posted by Cheyenne (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now hold on Mayor Elect Murtaugh has only been in that position for what a little over a month? And you expect him to be completely on top of something that has been on going over the summer? Besides I believe he stated he that he would like to see it ready and clean before it is approved.
Posted by alea (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DoubleD, it's not that you've asked questions. People generally welcome questions when asked in a way where there can be compromise, learning or understanding. It's how you ask the questions. You've come before the planning commission in a confrontational manner. You have done the same with the comp plan steering committee as well as city employees on different subjects on different occasions. Many other people have witnessed and experienced this behavior.
To reiterate, the development of the new plan began Mar '07 with the selection of the consultants. There's still no way that you can convince me that comments in Nov '08, make them anything but last minute. Agenda's, meeting notes, public meeting input, draft chapters were available every step of the way for review and comment.
As a person running for office in Albert Lea - especially the office of Mayor - one would think that he would have made more obvious attempts to become involved in a process as important as this one. As stated previously, the council candidates came to the steering committee meetings. He did not.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How did this group become so powerful. Why do people who are running for office have to come in front of this committe and get their blessing. I take issue with a group of non-elected officals making laws and policy. We the people have no way to get rid of anyone on this committe yet they can tell the city how to led us. Something is wrong here people.
Posted by RobertHoffmanRealtor (Robert Hoffman) on December 17, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Truth,
It's not a law until the Council approves it. The Council and Staff also appointed each of these boards memebers.
They just stopped taking applications on the 15th to join many of the Citys boards and committies. If you are this interested and want to participate ask if you can still apply. It'll give you a chance to see how it all works...and just how much work it takes.
Posted by tallyman (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gee, the U.S. Secretary of Defense isn't elected. The Secretary of State isn't elected. Same for the Attorney General and the Treasury Secretary. How did they become so powerful? Oh yeah, those Cabinet posts were started by President George Washington. Apparently, the Founding Fathers understood it is okay to give power to non-elected officials, as long as they have oversight from elected officials.
With the planning commission, it clearly has oversight by the elected City Council officials.
Posted by Intheknow (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Albert Lea is paying a high price for choosing an inexperienced city manager. This planning commission is way out of control and everyone in city hall knows it. Erdmans ego is clearly invested in pushing this comprehensive plan through as his "legacy". Some legacy - an incomplete, contradictory, and divisive plan.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Those postions do not make laws and are not that powerful. They serve at the pleasure of the President. Plus the President can not make laws only congress thus your argument is flawed on many levels.
I just think the council should not have to have all of these commuittes. They are elected to do a job. One that the past councils have not done very well. This little planning commuitte has cause Albert Lea to go backwards not forward.
Most of us working stiffs don't have time to serve on these power grabing commuties. We are working 1, 2 or even 3 jobs just to cover our bills and the extra cost the city has placed on us.
Big government is never the answer.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To Intheknow
I would say it not just the out going mayor but also all of those out going council members. They did a very bad job and ran this city into the ground now they want to have someone or something to pin their name on. What a mess. The city has missed the boat over and over again. They do not listen to the people. As George Baily said "those people do the working and dieing in this town is it to much to ask to give them a little respect?"
I would say that the out going mayor and council would say yes it is to hard to give the people of Albert Lea that respect.
Posted by mmurtaugh (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
At one of the candidate forums, the question was asked about our exposure to the comprehensive plan process. As I stated at that time, I was not extended the privilege of being a member of the steering committee. I did attend a number of the public meetings held to incorporate input into the process, including the sessions held at the Senior Center.
I did attend a portion of the final steering committee meeting last week, not because I was specifically invited, but because I wanted to hear the recommendation from the committee, plus I knew there were some concerns about wording of the plan from both Mr. Dorman and Mr. Graham. I might also note, even though I was present, I was not specifically asked for any input.
Also, my quote above mentions the appendices to the plan. Part of what I emailed to the Tribune was not used, in which I stated that these appendices were not available as of last Wednesday's meeting, and even last night it was not clear if the planning committee had them, or if they did, for how long. I have not seen a copy of them. If they are an integral part of the plan, there should be time allowed to review them as part of the complete document, public included. That is why I feel more time should be allowed before the council considers this plan.
Mike Murtaugh
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have to agree with Truth. Why is this nonelected board setting policy. It looks (sounds) as if the mayor we elected is asking that the out going council and mayor not approve this until he and the people of Albert lea have a chance to look at it.
The problem as I see it is that the people of Albert Lea have lost faith in their government. There has been to many backroom deals. We are not allowed to know ever thing. We are not given the chance to read plans laws or fees because they are not put out until after they are passed. Look at the social host law, the rental law, the idea to destroy bridge. All hidden from the public. Time for an open government and the current council should not vote on this because they do not have the support of the people.
Posted by Intheknow (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It really is telling that so many of us have to post without using our real names. It is all too clear that if you do stand up to Vickie, or Erdman (really just a front man for power obsessed Trow's) you get labeled confrontational or difficult. Dorman is the best example of this phenom. He dared to ask about sewer rates provoking the wrath of Rhonda MOEN (Tiger Hill) and Vickie both. Now Dorman is standing up for Albert Lea on this faulty plan He's doing his job fighting for us - he is braver than I am.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree. If you take a stand the city comes after you. Dan this plan should be killed. There is to many people trying to grab power from the people.
Posted by allake (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is post from ALEA on another topic.
Truth - if you do not want to run for office stop being so critical of the people sticking their necks out there to make a difference for this city. Either be part of the solution or be quiet
I guess ALEA thinks only people that agree with her opinion should speak up.
I called a member of the planning commission tonight. Like most stories there are two sides. The meeting this person thinks you are referring to was when the Commission tried to over reach from their duties on the ITC project. At the end of that meeting on of the Commissioners said "I think we owe Mr. Dorman an apology" since he was the target of a misinformation campaign by a few members of the "eltite" group. Interesting.
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Irregardless of a comp plan, we still need leaders with good sound judgement to make individual descisions.
Posted by RegularJoe (anonymous) on December 17, 2008 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Once again Dorman proves why he is only Republican I have ever voted for. Keep up the good work Dan you have more support in City Hall than some may want you to believe. The City Manager surrounds herself with "yes men and women" and you are one of the few that dare challenge her and she does not like that one bit.
You must be winning since they can't win on the facts they are resorting to personal attacks.
But watch your back.
Posted by RobertHoffmanRealtor (Robert Hoffman) on December 18, 2008 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Truth you said...
"Most of us working stiffs don't have time to serve on these power grabbing commutes. We are working 1, 2 or even 3 jobs just to cover our bills and the extra cost the city has placed on us."
...but we have to! ESPECIALLY US! (if you were coming at me saying I’m no a working stiff you couldn’t be more wrong) If we do however allow the comfortable few that "have time" to serve to make all our policies how then will we ever be more than underserved and unsatisfied.
Politics affect everyday of our life and the decisions are only made by those who show up.
A great point was made about hiding behind a fake screen name-I only know of a few that dont, and syre there is cause in that-but we really do need more of us to help make more decisions BEFORE they're almost done. One of the dumbest things I hear over and over is "its all done behind closed doors" Don’t be stupid...its then you hiding behind your closed door and not out there to help!
There aren’t any secret rooms! Well okay, there’s a few-but that’s a secret.
I’m 31 and serve on many VERY DEMANDING VERY UNPAID boards and commissions. I will easily say I work as much if not a lot more than most, seriously-you ever drive by my office and not see my car? or see me out at every public function. WE NEED MORE WORKING STIFFS TO SERVE!
...and the comments about Mr. Dan Dorman, that working stiff busts his butt day in and day out for us...we should just ask him if we can help any.
If we could simply modify our motivations from arguing about everything after the fact toward participating as early as possible we would easily creative a more productive immediacy between every entity involved and would share in stronger successes through thorough communications.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
The Tribune encourages healthy, respectful dialogue in the spirit of community enlightenment. It's OK to disagree, but be courteous and civil. Name-calling, vulgarity and claims of criminality are subject to removal.
(Requires free registration.)