ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_ivg22p2 wrote
Reply to comment by wederservebetter in Ballot, question 1: In general, I'm against rezoning for commercial, but does the property owner want it rezoned or is the city asking for it? by wederservebetter
I'm not sure how close other residential properties are and I'm a terrible guesser at distances.
The residents of Galloway are very against this happening. They are the ones that got it on the ballot. Had they not pursued this option, the land would have been rezoned already and construction would have begun.
alfrred08 t1_ivjz8iw wrote
Residential properties are not adjacent to it. There is Sequiota to the east, quarry to the south, restaurant and church to the west, and photography shop to the north. I will vote yes on this. From what I've read, the developer had compromised on every metric possible including preserving existing "historic" structures, saving as many trees as possible, increasing green space by way more than minimum required by code, reducing the proposed building from 4 stories to 2 stories and much more.. he has done everything possible to work with the neighborhood but they seemingly can't be reasoned with. If this fails, he will likely sell and there's nothing stopping the next property owner from razing the site.
alfrred08 t1_ivk0q6s wrote
Here's a direct Copy/Paste "letter to the editor" article in SBJ:
Dear editor,
On Nov. 8, we as a city will be voting on whether or not a development in Galloway Village will be built.
I commend the community in Galloway Village for speaking their mind and advocating for meaningful improvements to their neighborhood. It was solely because of their action that 150 mature trees will be preserved with this [proposed] development. It is wholly due to their passion that four historic buildings will be saved from demolition. This development [plan] creates 75% more green space than is required entirely as a result of Galloway neighbors’ voices.
I equally applaud the developer for listening to neighborhood opinions and making significant changes based on their feedback. Valid concerns about traffic, pedestrian safety and stormwater management all contributed to significant changes to the original design of the project.
Will these accommodations satisfy everyone? Of course not. But in a pluralistic community with so many competing interests, it is unrealistic to please everyone. In this case, I think it’s fair to say that neither side got exactly what they wanted. Perfect. Compromise worked.
It’s also worth noting that there’s real risk when we fail to compromise. Today, this development [proposal] protects 150 mature trees and four historic buildings from demolition. These protections could be lost on Nov. 8.
One can only wonder what the corner of National and Sunshine might look like today had compromise allowed a bedand-breakfast to be built in 2016. Today, in Galloway, we have a bird in our hand.
I am voting “yes” on Question 1 because I believe the necessary and extensive outreach to neighbors and stakeholders was successful, resulting in a design enhancing the quality of place in Galloway.
Elios000 t1_ivg4j68 wrote
the rezoning would extend down that side of National and Sunshine and butt up right to people back yards like to does the other way from the intersection down sunshine
google maps link https://goo.gl/maps/Z3WrDZ65gBs7enyY8
GeneralTonic t1_ivg7yrc wrote
Question 1 is about Galloway, not National and Campbell.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments