Ede Graves - Public Input - Re: Comprehensive Plan - May 28th City Planning Board Meeting
Remarks by Ede Graves:
I read and re-read the document from front to back and came up with some suggested changes that need to be made to the Comprehensive Plan.( I will admit my background as Director of Corporations always has me picking up a red pen whenever I read important documents.)
These tabs mark the nearly 100 changes I submitted to the Planning Director on May 1st, most of them spelling, grammatical or incomplete sentences. Sometimes just one word in a sentence sends entirely the wrong message, like leaving the word “not” out. But, besides the Journalistic review, I delved into the accuracy of the Plan. Quite a few of those tabs mark sections of the Plan that are just plain wrong. For brevity, I will just bring to your attention just two.
Page 96: Setback Standards
A reduction in the minimum setback requirements and the use of build-to-line requirements or the use of maximum building setbacks in the City’s older quarters should be considered. Do any of you on the Planning Commission even know what that means? Let me read that again:
A reduction in the minimum setback requirements and the use of build-to-line requirements or the use of maximum building setbacks in the City’s older quarters should be considered. That, and many other sentences in the Plan make NO sense!
And then there’s this one:
Page 94: Lot Size and Density
… Lots where the lot size is up to 30% smaller than required are permitted for development by the zoning ordinance. Beyond the 30% threshold, action by the City’s Board of Zoning Appeals is required. I’m the Chair of the Board of Zoning Appeals and I know that this was changed three years ago to a 45% threshold. Let me give you an example: to build a single-family home in R4 zoning requires a lot of 6000 square feet with a 60-foot width. But, the “threshold” of 45% applies to both, so drops the ACTUAL size required to 3300 square feet and 33 feet wide! Do you still think we need to change the zoning to allow more density than THAT?
This document needs serious review. The Commissioners have not even seen the Plan with my revisions (not that all of mine would be accepted, but the Commissioners need to know what sections the citizens have concerns about). I ask that you postpone any decision until you can take into consideration ALL the information presented by me and others here tonight. This is too important a document to pass up to City Council without accurate and clear information for our future.