The latest Planning Commission meeting was Monday, May 19th. I’ll offer comments on a few parts of an agenda-rich meeting.
Currently, the city planner’s post is vacant, and consultants to the city are fulfilling a portion of that role.
The Planning Commission elected a new chairperson (Kristine Zaballos), vice-chairperson (Greg Torres), and filled roles where Planning Commission members attend other committees — among them representative to the Community Development Authority (Tom Miller) and Tree Commission (David Stone).
There were no opposing candidates for these positions, and it suggests — I think — a group that generally has come to understand the lay of the land, so to speak. That’s not true in every case, but likely for most on the commission.
I also thought it was a gracious gesture to ask, and for the group to agree, for Jason Wiedenhoeft to chair his final meeting.
It’s also honest and fair to applicants and the board to ask an applicant for a quid pro quo (the Cordio’s Beer Here request). That gives an applicant both an opportunity and a responsibility. If you want this, then how about these requests for a conditional use….? There’s nothing categorical about it — a bit of effort on both sides will produce an accommodation. It’s straightforward, and easily understood by applicants and the community.
If the conditions are too extreme, applicants will complain, and the community will notice.
It’s the categorical that causes more trouble — a blanket declaration that something cannot happen, that they’ll be no agreement under any circumstances. Most of these matters can be decided affirmatively, if the conditions are not too onerous so as to undermine the venture.
The university is planning a new residence building at Starin and Prince. It’s a green building, and there are guidelines that assure that it truly will meet environmental conservation standards. At a time when almost every product touts its environmentally-friendly nature, it’s important to check (1) what standards are, and (2) verify compliance (as the commission did in several respects). The architects of the building are well-established, and are likely to meet verifiable guidelines.
One other aspect of this apartment project stands out, more than any other — it is designed in part to accommodate those who are disabled. One of the characteristics of our university is its role in being a friendly campus for those who disabled. Some students choose the university for that reason. It’s another reason to be proud of, and support, the campus. Fighting and overcoming barriers to higher education is part of the American dream.