At Farnsworth Farms, I hope we learned our lessons. We have the opportunity NOW to do something to protect the interests of Sandy Citizens, and if we don't act NOW we give away that right. Farnsworth had many opportunities to provide restrictions and commitments, but we didn't cross the t's and dot the i's, and now we have rental units which again price people out of the market. In this case, we have the opportunity to create stipulations that protect the citizens to some extent. I would HATE to see yet another global approval without consideration for the long term ramifications of the project. I could support the amendments to the code language for age requirement (55+) and police support (paid by the applicant). I could support other items as well that put some controls and considerations for cost measures. I even support the facility being placed with restrictions, just as I lobbied for in Farnsworth. What I don't support is just an open approval without additional restrictions from what is proposed. Shouldn't we learn our lessons from Farnsworth and pause for a moment to enact real protection for the citizens?
I agree with Brooke Christensen for adding the 55+ age requirement, as well as police support paid by the service.
May I also express the most concern for those we are trying to help. It would be fundamental to also include supportive infrastructure for them. Nearby health clinics, services, employment opportunities, etc. Can you please comment on the City’s planning in this regard? Thank you!
The more I learn about this facility the less in favor I am. There needs to be and age requirement (55+) and police support (paid by the applicant) included.
Please consider making both of these items requirements for facilities that house over 10 people. This requirement would alleviate most of the community concerns / issues.
At Farnsworth Farms, I hope we learned our lessons. We have the opportunity NOW to do something to protect the interests of Sandy Citizens, and if we don't act NOW we give away that right. Farnsworth had many opportunities to provide restrictions and commitments, but we didn't cross the t's and dot the i's, and now we have rental units which again price people out of the market. In this case, we have the opportunity to create stipulations that protect the citizens to some extent. I would HATE to see yet another global approval without consideration for the long term ramifications of the project. I could support the amendments to the code language for age requirement (55+) and police support (paid by the applicant). I could support other items as well that put some controls and considerations for cost measures. I even support the facility being placed with restrictions, just as I lobbied for in Farnsworth. What I don't support is just an open approval without additional restrictions from what is proposed. Shouldn't we learn our lessons from Farnsworth and pause for a moment to enact real protection for the citizens?
I agree with Brooke Christensen for adding the 55+ age requirement, as well as police support paid by the service.
May I also express the most concern for those we are trying to help. It would be fundamental to also include supportive infrastructure for them. Nearby health clinics, services, employment opportunities, etc. Can you please comment on the City’s planning in this regard? Thank you!
The more I learn about this facility the less in favor I am. There needs to be and age requirement (55+) and police support (paid by the applicant) included.
Please consider making both of these items requirements for facilities that house over 10 people. This requirement would alleviate most of the community concerns / issues.