On a 4-3 Vote on Thursday night, June 29, 2006, with Mayor Sandy Decker casting the deciding vote, the Planning Commission voted to move the land use designation of the Phil Maas property under resolution 2006-12 from the future land use map to the interim use map. This property, which is in Union Twp, is in effect in position to be annexed and developed as soon as the applicant gains approval for annexation, rather than waiting ten years.
The applicant and developer, Mr. Mourning, described the project as a walkable neighborhood with about 100 homes of various sizes and prices, with lots that will vary and have as yet to be determined. There will be a "node" of commercial.
The population impact will be that the growth rate of Evansville will move to about 31% growth rate rather than the 27% rate that 70% of the citizens in the recent citizens survey had seen as desirable.
Mayor Decker said that her main concern was reducing the traffic on West Main, and the improvement of an alternative way for traffic to exit Evansville would be a plus for her.
Mr. Hammann, Mr. Gil Skinner as well as Mason Braunschweig spoke in opposition to the proposal citing the impact on schools and Mr. Hammann mentioned that the "Holy Grail" of target 27% under the Smart Growth Plan was something to be preserved.
Mr. Mark Schnepper as well as Richard Woulfe as citizens spoke requesting that some impact studies be done prior to the approval citing the adverse impact on schools. Both had no objection to the project concept, just the timing and possible negative impact on taxes for homeowners.
Mr. Schweke, the City Planner, indicated that the land use matter change is one thing, but that the annexation hearing will be ample opportunity for citizens to express their preference regarding whether they wish the target growth rate to be busted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am sorry that the plan commission made this recommendation before seeking more definitive information on the impact of increasing the growth rate to 31% (which may be conservative, depending on which number your use for average # of people per household). The previous commission arrived at 27% based on a resident survey, but it was never based on how this rate will impact the community. 27% may be too much growth, but at this point the best we can hope for is holding the rate to 27%.
ReplyDeleteI find it particularly troubling that Mr. Vrstal and Mr. Sauer voted for this recommendation. Part of the deal on a past vote for Westfield Meadows was that no more developments would be added to the master plan for another 10 years and in turn the developers would agree to a rolling average of 70 lots per year. Mr. Vrstal and Mr. Sauer did not keep their end of the bargain by voting for this development. Do the developers in the ongoing projects now feel not obligated to keep their word?
This point has been brought up on this site before, but I think it is unfair to the constituency that Mr. Sauer even has a vote. In my opinion, his engineering knowledge should be used to educate the PC when necessary and they should form their votes based on his opinion. He does not live in Evansville and could switch jobs tomorrow and never think about Evansville again. He doesn't pay taxes here and may not always look at the big picture, because he personally won't be impacted by his a shortsighted vote that is perhaps from an engineering standpont and does not look at the big picture. In my mind his role should be more like the city planners. If his vote had been cast by a person that has an interest in our schools and tax base perhaps the vote would have lost 3-4.
Does the mayor have any rationale for increasing the development rate, other than she hopes to decrease the traffic on the street that she lives on by opening up an arterial road? She tried to persuade Alderman Braunschweig into voting the same way, because he also lives on main st. I was glad he looked beyond that in his vote.
I to was troubled by Mayor Decker's reasoning for her vote. I actually find it very scary. We have far more traffic on East Main, when is she going to help us?
ReplyDelete(Don't worry I am not holding my breath). I am one of the people who have said for the last couple of years, that if you don't live here, you should not vote here. I would be curious to know what it would take to , I would think nothing more than appointing another person to the pc who lives in town, and let him continue to advise the commission, but not vote. I also wonder how that ever got started, letting someone vote on city issues who does not live here.
It would seem as though they talk about making changes, doing things different. But really its still the same game.
ReplyDeleteFor at least the last 15 years the City Engineer (currently Dave Sauer) has been a voting member of the Plan Commission, per city ordinances. Gotta problem with that? Get a couple of alderpesrsons to introduce an amendment to the city ordinances to change that. Then lobby for the change.
ReplyDeleteBut why did they do it that way? Not only does he not live in town, he is employed by the city.. Once in a while you will see a alder person or planning commission person excuse them selves from voting due to conflict of interest, I think he would have a big one as thats who is paying his salary, would not want to make them mad.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, in the time I worked with Dave Sauer, I found him to be an independent thinker and extremely useful to have on the Planning Commission. He spoke freely and often, explaining his take on things, and I never once thought his vote was anything other than his true opinion - even on the occasions when we disagreed.
ReplyDelete