Council adopts riverfront study despite objections over housing proposals in park area

The Clinton City Council voted to adopt a riverfront development study presented as the "riverfront development study master plan" on April 5, despite objections from council members and concern from residents about conceptual housing shown in parts of the study.

Council members debated whether the document should be accepted as a study or labeled a master plan and whether the North and South ends of the riverfront should be considered separately. "The idea in Riverview Park of housing is not very favorable," Council member Oberg said, adding that a recent ordinance requires a public vote before nonrecreational uses can replace parkland. "That's never gonna happen because of our recent ordinance," she said.

Council member McCurries said the study did not match his expectations for a river-oriented amenities study. "When we talked about doing this riverfront study ... it was to determine whether things should be incorporated or done instead of North River Drive," he said. McCurries urged the council to consider separating the study into two votes, one for the north end and one for the south end, because he said he opposed the south-end concepts.

Other council members and staff characterized the document as a long-range vision based on public input collected by the study team. "This is just a study. It's going to sit on the shelf like the old one did, and if we ever get to do something," one council member said, noting the plan reflected comments, sticky notes and surveys from citizens.

Council members also recorded concerns about perception and the reaction from citizens who opposed any suggestion of selling parkland. One member said they received multiple phone calls from citizens worried about proposed changes to the pony baseball field.

The motion to adopt the study passed with five votes in favor and two opposed. Council member Shearers moved the resolution; a second was recorded but not named in the minutes. Several council members said the study should not be taken as a commitment to immediate development and emphasized it represents a long-term vision rather than an adopted engineering or construction plan.

The adoption resolves only the study document; any future project on parkland would still be subject to the city's ordinances and public-notice requirements, council members said.