--- billconnors <noreply-comment@blogger.com> wrote:
---------------------------------
The limits are made enforceable by provisions in the
final land divider's agreements. My memorandum to the
Council about the final land divider's agreement for
the Capstone Ridge Subdivision contained the following
text:
"The Common Council also will consider approving a
final land divider’s agreement and a final plat for
this subdivision. If these are approved, construction
will begin immediately north of the current dead end
on N. Water St. in the Countryside Estates
Subdivision. The final land divider’s agreement
provides that the developers may construct streets and
other infrastructure for 37 lots in 2005 and 36 lots
in 2006. Construction of streets for the remaining 64
lots, which are located in the western part of the
subdivision, cannot begin until 2007 at the earliest."
The Council approved this agreement, even though it
would allow infrastructure for the last 64 lots to
constructed all at once in 2007.
I created the spreadsheet I mentioned in my earlier
message after the Council approved the Capstone Ridge
agreement, and it also illustrated this point. The
memo that accompanied the spreadsheet was addressed to
the Plan Commission, not the Common Council, but I may
have distributed copies to the Council as well. It is
my recollection that Ald. Sorson asked about the fact
that the Grand Orchard Estates final land divider's
agreement allows infrastructure for 52 lots to be
constructed in 2005 before the Council voted to
approve the agreement.
I have said repeatedly to the Plan Commission, and I
believe to the Council as well, that if they approve
any more subdivisions in the next 10 years beyond
Capstone Ridge, Grand Orchard Estates, Westfield
Meadows, and one tentatively planned for north of
Westfield Meadows, there is no way they can keep the
population growth rate during the next 10 years to the
growth rate target in the Smart Growth Comprehensive
Plan. It will be up to future Plan Commissions and
Common Councils to decide how important this is if
someone else seeks to start another subdivision within
10 years.
Bill Connors
Evansville City Administrator
--
Posted by billconnors to Evansville Observer at
9/15/2005 02:33:46 PM
To STARVING.. Mr. Connors is doing what he is suppose to do by posting on this site, keeping the citizens that PAY his taxes informed. If you don't like it, don't read it. BRAVO Mr.Connors.. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteI agree w/ always. Lots of the complaints about the city have been about secrecy, and lack of dialogue with citizens. I think Mr. Connors posting on this site improves both of these matters. Also if the citizens are misinformed in their opinions the rumors can be stopped through this forum. For example, the other day there were complaints about a secret closed session of the common council. In reality the session was closed so the city would not "show their hand" as far as what they were willing to pay on a real estate deal. Mr. Connors was able to satisfy people with this explanation. I think part of his job is to communicate with us. No one complains about the cityscape article in the review. I don't see this forum any differently than writing an article.
ReplyDeleteI went to the initial Capstone Ridge meeting with the intention of speaking against this proposal, because I felt we were growing too fast (or at least growing at a fast pace without any consideration to the financial impact on the community). This was the meeting where the plan to limit growth was introduced (I believe, it was new to me at that point anyway).
ReplyDeleteMy original thoughts were I was against any additional growth until the city did its "homework" to assess how this would impact the city. However, at the meeting I was told that if Capstone was approved, their would be a "formal agreement" with the developers to limit each to 35/year (70 total). If Capstone were denied, they would not agree to this and just continue to build without consideration to growth rate (in the already approved developments). I asked if it was going to be a "business man's handshake" and then left up to the builders to abide by the agreement. I was told, No it will be a formal agreement they would have to abide by.
It seems to me that if they finish development of these subdivisions before the 10 year period is over that more development will most likely be approved. It appears that it is a nice idea, but it really isn't going to have any effect on the actual growth rate, unless the developers do take it seriously. In my opinion, given the lake of enforceability the growth rate will probably be set by the market conditions, which is the way it always has been. I kind of feel like I "fell for it," but on the other hand, I know I could have spoken against approval and it would not have changed any votes.