Some things just don't change - the City Plan was something we worked on tirelessly in my time on Council and Plan Commission, only to be ignored and collect dust afterward.
One thought I had (and maybe this is already being done) - add a requirement to proposed developments that they provide a written narrative describing how their proposal supports the City's Smart Growth Plan. It's still lip-service but might at least make the developer think about it and also forces the Commission to remember that they have a plan to follow.
I feel Grove Partners needs a reality check. Their other subdivision (8th St, Winston Way etc.) has had ZERO bites and the one home that is built is showing no movement. They should concentrate on that development before even thinking about the one being proposed. In addition, there are Duplexes slated for that Settlers Grove .
I'm a firm believer in sticking to the Plan. The Comp Plan serves as an anchor to prevent the City from swaying in the winds of change, political and economic. If a proposal is truly beneficial but outside the plan, there's are mechanisms for amendment. That three pound volume has been revised four times since it was drawn up 21 years ago. Priorities have changed. So too, has the Plan. That book serves as institutional memory in the absence of other guidance.
Green spaces, specifically parks, are addressed in the Comp Plan. It allows developers to make a cash payment or to donate land for parks with every Developer's Agreement. If memory serves, a grand bargain was made comprising parkland dedication for Westfield Meadows and Windmill Ridge along with lift station infrastructure under Larson Acres Park that benefited the city, the developers, and doubled the size of what was then, Westside Park.
While green space may be a popular choice, I think that developer has met their obligation in that regard, on that lot.
Thank you for the podcast recommendation!
Some things just don't change - the City Plan was something we worked on tirelessly in my time on Council and Plan Commission, only to be ignored and collect dust afterward.
One thought I had (and maybe this is already being done) - add a requirement to proposed developments that they provide a written narrative describing how their proposal supports the City's Smart Growth Plan. It's still lip-service but might at least make the developer think about it and also forces the Commission to remember that they have a plan to follow.
I feel Grove Partners needs a reality check. Their other subdivision (8th St, Winston Way etc.) has had ZERO bites and the one home that is built is showing no movement. They should concentrate on that development before even thinking about the one being proposed. In addition, there are Duplexes slated for that Settlers Grove .
I'm a firm believer in sticking to the Plan. The Comp Plan serves as an anchor to prevent the City from swaying in the winds of change, political and economic. If a proposal is truly beneficial but outside the plan, there's are mechanisms for amendment. That three pound volume has been revised four times since it was drawn up 21 years ago. Priorities have changed. So too, has the Plan. That book serves as institutional memory in the absence of other guidance.
Green spaces, specifically parks, are addressed in the Comp Plan. It allows developers to make a cash payment or to donate land for parks with every Developer's Agreement. If memory serves, a grand bargain was made comprising parkland dedication for Westfield Meadows and Windmill Ridge along with lift station infrastructure under Larson Acres Park that benefited the city, the developers, and doubled the size of what was then, Westside Park.
While green space may be a popular choice, I think that developer has met their obligation in that regard, on that lot.