January 2008

All,

The document I have forwarded is in regard to the decision of staff to not hold a Public Hearing before the council on the draft Comprehensive Plan. Scott Hickok had a blurb on Fridley cable saying yes and then Julies e-mail says no. I would point out to you the editorial comment located at the end of this article and ask you to review Chapter 8 Section .01 of our Charter. Although the Charter is not specific it does call out that a public hearing before the council is required when changing a zoning plan. If a public hearing is required to change text for a "Doggy Daycare" facility why not on something as important as the Comprehensive Plan? I would ask that you err on the side of openness and have a public hearing.

Along with specific items in this draft I would call your attention to the use of the word policy in Chapter 1, How This Plan Will Be Used. We as citizens have long been told that this document is merely a guide. It is my opinion that using the word policy locks the city into what staff has outlined.

I would also inform you that at the hearing before the Planning Commission I submitted a list of questions to Julie Jones and have not received answers. Something as simple as the request that the word sediment be changed to sentiment in Chapter 5, paragraph two, fell on deaf ears and remains unchanged from the first draft.

It appears that citizen input was exactly that. This plan includes very few, if any, of the desires expressed by the citizens of this city and may I point out that the input from citizens was a lot more realistic than the "dreams" of staff. One example would be the extension of 57th Ave. Look at what it took to get a tunnel built under BN tracks and staff sees feasibility in building a multi-million dollar bridge.

There needs to be much more conversation on this plan before it's finalization and a public hearing before the council would be the place to start. I understand the requirement to have a plan but I do not believe the Met Council requires that it contain unattainable, unfeasible and unrealistic goals.

I would urge you to watch the HRA meeting of Oct. 25,2007. At this meeting Julie Jones unveils her desire to "embrace urbanization". I am certain that those of us who moved to Fridley certainly did not do so with the goal of becoming an urban city. We chose a suburb to raise our families and but our homes and do not believe that city staff should have the power, as Julie Jones stated at the Planning Commission hearing, to change our expectations of life in Fridley. Please also watch the Planning Commission hearing Dec. 19th, 2007. Although not many spoke, perhaps because there was a misconception that there would be a public hearing before the council, there were enough concerns expressed that moving forward with this document should not happen. I would ask that you go back and read the vision in the current Comp. Plan. The citizens, then, embraced keeping that home town feel. That does not happen with urbanization.

Pay careful attention to the failure of this plan to establish a set goal for ratios of home ownership to rental units. 70/30 is the desire of many including the mayor. Higher rental density does lead to higher crime as shown in the chart I submitted into record at the Planning Commission hearing. We as a city should be promoting our city as a place to live and raise a family not as an upcoming urban nightmare. For those of you who were elected to represent the people, now is the time to tell staff that their vision is not that of the people nor yourselves.

The concept of a walkable community could be achieved by purchasing equipment to keep bike paths cleared throughout the winter. The zoning commitment to the residents in Hyde Park should not be abandoned. City development staff, most of who do not live here, should not be allowed to formulate the future vision of this city and totally ignore the input of citizens.

I am currently comparing the first draft with the second draft and am finding no significant changes to the representation of citizen input. I would hope that you would direct staff to go back to the drawing board and scrap this goal of destroying the very quality of life that we currently enjoy in suburban Fridley.

Respectfully submitted,
Pam Reynolds