.
To clarify, at the June 23 Onalaska Plan Commission meeting, I did not propose duplexes (rentals, increased density, changing zoning, or cheapening of design and construction) in Savannah Village. What I did propose was a small number of attached (twin) condominiums discreetly designed and blended into the neighborhood, and maintaining the same amount of families in Savannah Village as is already approved.
Despite the emotions expressed during that meeting, which were based on groundless fears and prejudice, I contend my proposal is a creative response to the evolving marketplace in residential housing.
Many potential buyers have expressed their desire for greater variety of housing types and lot sizes in this unique development. This change will allow me the flexibility to create an even more interesting streetscape and to allow for increased green space equivalent to not building on two lots.
As a planned urban development, Savannah Village is eligible for a variance of this nature. In addition, this solution would have reduced costs on a few buildings for the benefit of some homeowners, but maintained overall values in the neighborhood.
Our standards are the highest in the area for no-maintenance materials used and construction quality, which results in excellent value by the use of creative and flexible design. Our emphasis on greener maintenance and landscaping standards by the association prevents any of our homes from falling below an acceptable level of appearance in yards or in the general landscape, and also are designed to encourage a more naturalized and healthy environment.
It is disheartening and ridiculous to be accused of not caring about green space preservation by the very people that sold their land for development over three years ago. Savannah Village is the first Energy Star and green-built neighborhood in the state to take place, and should be considered a gem within the Coulee Region. It was appalling to listen to complaints on unrelated issues as “supporting” argument against this specific proposal, and to have our decision makers as a whole not weigh these complaints in the context of the concept.
It was especially odd as most dissenters and commission members did acknowledge what a nice job of we have done in Savannah Village. It is a further frustration to have these facts of the meeting glossed over, and the reported focus was instead on how many turned up to speak for or against. This became a missed opportunity to clarify the arguments for and against, perhaps to bring more light to the topic, instead more confusion reigns.
Development has always been a hot button in the evolution of this and every other community that still has land to build on. As we grow, both citizens and elected officials must evaluate proposals on the facts. We all need to move beyond allowing those who can argue the loudest to win the argument. It is better to evaluate the truth of each argument and the motivation of the person who brings it forward.
I believe, through creative thinking and planning, we can find better ways to build and live — which is crucial as we manage resources like money, land, materials, water and energy. We need to get beyond the notion that it is a particular type of building or zoning that makes a community less vibrant or more risky.
My role is not to lessen green space or to encourage development, but to ensure that what we do build is the best it can be. I would hope in the future those at public hearings, both those providing input and our decision makers will better remember that their own roles are to focus on the facts and not fears.
.
Advertisement 
olderthandirt wrote on Jul 10, 2009 8:52 PM: