Friday, September 16, 2005

Stay Consistent With Your General Plan (Else Why Have One?)

Interesting editorial in the Standard-Examiner yesterday, urging Layton City to stay consistent in a pending land use decision with its adopted general plan.

I'm not familiar with the particulars of this specific case, but its great to have one of Utah's major newspapers editorialize in favor of planning, essentially.

The editorial says, "If cities undertake to plan for future growth and/or redevelopment, and solicit citizen input, there should be some moral obligation to follow whatever comes as a result of that process. Just because a developer...owns land nearby and would rather do it there shouldn't persuade the city to abandon its long-established blueprint for development in the area."

Here, here, as a general principle for community planning!


At 6:41 PM, Blogger Former Centerville Citizen said...

Centerville is very notorious for playing "pick and choose" when it comes to following the city's general plan. When somebody requested a rezone on the Parrish House on the corner of Main St. and Parrish Lane, the city was very vehement in not changing the zoning on the property because of the general plan. Note, we're just talking about one small piece of property on the corner of an already busy intersection, with commercial properties on the other three corners of the intersection. And then when Wal-Mart comes and applies for a conditional use permit, various city officials constantly repeat the mantra "the general plan is just an advisory document." The General Plan specifically states that there should be no expansive parking lots along Parrish Lane. If a seven acre parking lot isn't expansive, then what is? I agree, if a city is going to put so much time and effort into composing a general plan, they should actually use it in a uniform manner across the board, or else why even bother?


Post a Comment

<< Home