The Planning Commission had to hear some very strange opposition testimony this past Thursday about the above proposed building (Item #17). The building will sit on a very large lot on the far southeastern part of the city (77th and Minnesota Ave). While such a design would probably stick out in Downtown, I don’t think the design will look out of place in this part of town. It’s a modern design with a 60-70’s throwback look. But some in the neighborhood were not happy about it. One guy suggested it needed a pitched asphalt roof and some brick on the exterior so it would ‘fit in’ the neighborhood.
Yeah, that wouldn’t make it stick out at all . . .
The planning commission approved it 6-0.
(Item #13) The Lacey Park property got approved for re-zoning (5-1). This time they changed the designation to Live/Work so a future buyer (there are none currently) could have options with the land besides just housing. Some in the Oakview Neighborhood wanted to have conditions put on the re-zoning, but since the land has no potential buyer currently, the Planning Commission said those conditions could be put on after it is sold and a development plan comes forward. I agree with the Planning Commission on this one, it is kind of hard to place conditions on a project that doesn’t exist.
But I disagree with some of the audience testimony.
Some felt that the Browns (who own the property and I think have lived there for 50 years) were being discriminated against because they are struggling to sell the property. I found it ironic that the Browns were happy as pie living there for decades as an agriculture property in the city, but now that they want to sell and move on they are asking for a re-zone, than wonder why there is opposition. I don’t feel sorry for the Browns. Having any investment, like property, requires taking a risk. The Browns risked waiting until they wanted to sell to change the zoning, so now they are getting scrutiny. That’s how the free market system works, winners and losers.
I also questioned people who felt that due to property rights afforded in our US Constitution that the Browns should be able to do what they want with the property including rezoning and building whatever they want to on the property. While I agree to some extent, you are allowed to do most things on your property that are reasonable and legal AS LONG as it doesn’t have a negative impact on your neighbors property due to things like density, traffic congestion and drainage. You have property rights, but it doesn’t give you the right to be a jerk to your neighbors.
We’ll see if the Planning Commission sticks to their commitment to put conditions on the future developer.
l3wis 
