..... we learn the Snake is still slithering waiting to strike when defense is down.
60-65 developer seeks change
A proposal scheduled to go before the city planning and zoning commission next month appears to remove the developer's obligation to pay for road connections related to the 60-65 Partnership project.
The city council approved the 500-acre development plan in 2009 after project owners assured the city -- and later Greene County -- that road costs would be the developer's to bear.
But a proposed amendment to Planned Development 330 -- a major housing and retail project straddling U.S. 65 -- strikes the developer's requirement to pay for the roads.
Geoff Butler, planner and spokesman for the 60-65 Partnership, said the change allows some flexibility in paying for the future roadwork.
"It opens the possibility for someone else to do it on their own," Butler said. "What happens if Obama gives the city or the county a whole bunch of stimulus money? We don't want to prevent someone from stepping up and paying for it."
The way PD 330 is currently written precludes anyone but the developer from paying for road improvements, he said.
Infrastructure includes a new interchange in the center of the development on U.S. 65, and connections to city and county roads on the project's west, north and east sides.
Those road links have proved controversial, with city and county residents vocally opposing future four-lane arterial links through their properties.
Butler estimated the road infrastructure would cost about $64 million.
City planner Mike MacPherson said he was aware of the proposed amendments to PD 330.
"I don't know why they chose to remove that," he said, referring to the developer's payment obligation.
"It's pretty obvious to me we (the city) aren't going to be able to fund an interchange. That $64 million infusion for road work has to come from somebody and the city doesn't have the opportunity to do it."
Mayor Jim O'Neal said he spoke with Butler on Tuesday and considers the language amendment "pretty innocent."
"The way it's worded could preclude us from using any kind of economic development tools we have in our toolbox," O'Neal said.
"If we get to the point where that development is heating up and money is ready to flow into that project, we need to be able to use the tools we have available to us.
"I don't see this as anything other than housekeeping," he added. "I know we're not going to pay for it unless manna drops from Heaven."
Other proposals
There are other amendment changes that planning and zoning officials will be asked to consider.
- One eliminates a controversial road connection east to Highway J.
Instead of identifying a route in PD 330, Butler said project backers will let government entities -- most likely Greene County officials -- decide where and how to make that east-side connection in the future.
- Engineers will try to design the U.S. 65 interchange so that Gasconade Bridge to the north wouldn't have to be removed.
But if state highway officials decide the bridge must be torn down, the city would get an engineering report substantiating why the project was necessary.
- Another amendment provides for donation of floodplain land along the James River for future use as a park.
Butler said the land would be given to The Springfield-Greene County Parks Department, which is considering it for an archery center and a river access that links to Lake Springfield.
No comments:
Post a Comment