Comments Received in Reference to the Master Plan Land Use Element Update,

Comments Received in Reference to the Land Use Element Update, from 08-15-07 to the present:

08-15-07
Staff contacted by Nicole Daily concerning discrepancies in, or omissions from, both Land Use Tables and the Lawrenceburg Existing Land Use Map.
Staff prepared an updated draft of the Land Use Element to address the aforementioned tables
and map. No additional comments were received.

08-16-07
Email received from Rick Pope.
Relevant Commentary:
“I just got through reviewing your work, the proposed land use map. Good job. I won't nitpick,
as I know that you won't please everyone anyway.
Good luck…”

08-17-07
Email received from Ralph Thompson.
Relevant Commentary:
“The changes look great. Just what you had talked about!”

08-22-07
Email received from Linda Mitchell.
Relevant Commentary:
“I have reviewed all of the documents, and I didn't see anything that I thought needed to be
addressed. I think it was very well written, and in theory will be a great tool for future planning
decisions. My only concern is that it will not bear any real weight.
Also, was there ever any discussion on having percentage limits for different types of
development? For example, any given township could not have more than a certain percentage
of high density or industrial, or anything like that? It would help to keep certain areas and/or
school districts from being overburdened.”

08-22-07
Email received from Travis Miller (Planning Director, 2003-2005).
Relevant Commentary:
“Thanks for the update on the comp plan. Great work! I'm please to hear you are keeping the
document alive. The added text is very well written and certainly improves the overall plan by
making it easier to interpret (with less room for interpretation). The maps are outstanding as
well. Good luck with the next steps with the approval…”

Email received from Helen Kremer.
Relevant Commentary:
Hello Mark,
“First, thank you for making the CD for me, I appreciate the timely response. Also, kudos to
you, and your staff, for working diligently on this project--this draft reflects your hard work.
As you requested--I have the following comments:
1) I strongly suggest the Future Land Use Concept Map Palette (Alternative A) be the one
submitted to the Commissioners. The primary reason, is as stated in the highlighted last
sentence under Introduction & Purpose (p. 124):
"Most importantly, this Element emphasizes that the Plan and its parts must be referenced
collectively--rather than independently--to be effective in the evaluation of land use proposals."
The interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan is, as stated, referenced "collectively", and, with
future development being inevitable, care has to be made to protect the low-moderate density
category, especially in areas near Flood Plain/Flood Prone, and Open Space areas.

In both proposed palettes (A and AA), Agriculture has one designation, Agricultural/Rural.
Residential has been reduced to two in "A", and only one in "AA". At the present time, I believe
palette A comes closer to serving the wishes of the people of the county.

2) On Page 147, Designated Floodplain and Flood Prone Areas,--
why not change the last sentence to read, "Development activities and/or the placement of any
obstructions should be restricted."

Why state "...should be extremely limited, if not restricted."?

The current Comprehensive Plan (P. 144) states, "...should be avoided for grading and
construction activities."
In my opinion, saying something is extremely limited is no different than stating it should be
restricted.

3) The Implementation Program
The goals are laudable. Will you inform members of the Advisory Group when these reviews
regarding Year 1 will take place? I would like to remain involved in this process.”