Every Comprehensive Plan Amendment #1 (application 2007-13). Decklin Every noted that this application is for the property in the Town of Union; however, the discussion included comments relative to both applications. Every said that his family’s plans to develop the property were not a new idea and showed a 1965 preliminary plat. Schwecke indicated that the request was to accelerate the designation from the Future Land Use map to the Intermediate Land Use map. He also noted that the topography of the site was different from the flat fields that have typically been developed in Evansville; this would be conducive to more housing variety by catering to a more upscale home.
Schwecke reviewed a memo about historical and anticipated growth in Evansville. He concluded that allowing development on the Every property would be within the growth rates needed for the 7000 population in 2025 which the Smart Growth Plan had identified. In terms of orderly development with reasonable availability of utilities, he recommended that if the Commission were to approve the amendment for the in-city applications then it should also approve the southern (but not the northern) portion of the in-town application. He noted that changing the land use designation on the map would not obligate the city to annex the property.
The Commission said this application would encourage faster growth and the Smart Growth Plan had a definite desire to regulate to growth rate. It was noted that there are already four large subdivision approved, providing many opportunities for someone wanting to build a house. The Commission also noted that the Smart Growth Plan was only two years old and any amendments should be fairly few or minor on such a recent plan.
It was noted that the property (actually the adjoining in-city parcel) had been annexed into the city 40 years ago with a plan for it to develop; it preceded the Smart Growth Plan and could be considered inadvertently overlooked during the Smart Growth process. The Everies indicated that they had been absent during the Smart Growth process because of significant health issues in the family. The Commission noted that the walkable neighborhood designation does not require a commercial anchor; it could have some other public activity as its focus. It was noted that any development is going to have some impact on the school, local services, and tax levies; however, the Smart Growth Plan identified a growth rate equal to 69 housing units per year.
At 7:55 the Commission took a five minute recess. Braunschweig made a motion, seconded by Roberts, to approve Plan Commission Resolution 2007-1, Recommending to the Common Council the Amendment of the City’s Smart Growth Comprehensive Plan by Changing the Land Use Designation of the Subject Property on the Interim Future Land Use Map from Agriculture/Undeveloped to Walkable Neighborhood. On a roll call vote, motion was defeated 2-5. Vrstal and Roberts voted for; Braunschweig, Decker, Brooks, Skinner, and Hammann voted against.
Every Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2 (application 2007-14). This application is the in-city parcel and was discussed throughout the deliberations on the other Every application. The Commission said that a development agreement could be used to phase the development similar to with the Larson Acres subdivision. The Commission noted that this land predated the Smart Growth Plan with its preliminary map and that the property is within the city.
Decker commented that the 27% growth identified in the Smart Growth Plan and some 700 lots available for development is not a no-growth attitude. The Smart Growth Plan identified continuing growth at its existing rate, with controls to keep it from accelerating.
Braunschweig made a motion, seconded by Hammann, to approve Plan Commission Resolution 2007-2, Recommending to the Common Council the Amendment of the City’s Smart Growth Comprehensive Plan by Changing the Land Use Designation of the Subject Property on the Interim Future Land Use Map from Agriculture/Undeveloped to Walkable Neighborhood. Hammann made a motion, seconded by Roberts, to amend the motion by adding “Whereas, the City has the option of negotiating a development agreement to phase in development of the property over time,” to Plan Commission Resolution 2007-2. Amendment approved 5-2. On a roll call vote, motion, as amended, approved unanimously.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment