CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Birchwood Community Council Bobbi Wells, Chair | 3/16/2005 2:54:32 PM |
| The Council reads this amendment as eliminating the GFA restriction but stating that dwellings will only be allowed ABOVE the business. We assume this is to pave the way for desired MIXED USE districts. We do have issues with Mixed Use districts but this isn't the forum to discuss those issues. We have a concern with the possibility of now creating a large number of properties that might be Grandfathered in: this creates major problems for the property owners. We fail to understand why having living quarters to the rear of the business would be a problem. Having to live above your business if you are handicapped in certain ways would be a negative. Being able to dwell to the rear of your business would enable a handicapped person to be a productive asset to the community, however this might create problems for delivery of freight, etc. Birchwood Council would like to see this amendment undergo further impact review and then be brought up during the Title 21 re-write. | |
| James Weingartner | 3/10/2005 5:28:49 PM |
| My general understanding of the code is to protect more hazardous or intrusive zones from impacting lesser zones. R1 is the least intrusive while I (Industrial) would be the most. I would think that adjacent offices/business would welcome having someone nearby casually watching over their property during off-hours. I would hope that the Zssembly and Zoning could adopt a general ammendment that automatically allowed development of property that would be categorized in a lower hazard zone. Maybe the only stipulation would be that this status would be required to be communicated in all future sales of the property and would communicate the existing zoning conditions at the time of original implementation. No going back for a grandfather clause. They knew the conditions going in, but let's not completly stop the possibilities for growth and change. Letters of non-objection should be required from the adjacent property owners and those letters would be part of the sale of their property. This understanding and all other pertainent agreements should be stated in the letter of non-objection. | |
| Joe Spurlock | 2/21/2005 2:11:18 PM |
| If any consideration to disallowing residential occupation in commercial structures as allowed by Title 21.40.180.B.3.b, it should be done with utmost care. There are a number of owner occupied businesses which enjoy the ability to have their residence located within the same structure within the MOA that would have to be 'grandfathered' in order for this to happen. This causes more bureaucratic red tape and paperwork not to mention that 'grandfathering' generally causes 'non-conformance' issues and as such under Title 21.55 places undue hardship on owners by eventually forcing them off or out of their premises/land, especially when structures are destroyed 50% or more. Let’s not forget the longevity of those to be effected and the positive impacts that these businesses have on our community. Besides, under the new Title 21 re-write plan, the mixed-use districts that are proposed would seem more appropriate to these situations. Let’s not make any changes to the current Title 21 ordinances until the new re-write is complete. This seems to be counter-productive which again causes undue burden on the tax payers. To those who already own non-conforming residences in the B3 district, this disallowance to Title 21.40.180.B.3.b takes away one of the simplest forms of residential expansion within the B3 district without having to resort to major renovations or increases in one’s neighbors. I have no reason to allow or disallow the expansion of the Rescue Mission because its location is so remote from my own residence. I do believe in the good that it provides to the local community and should be given serious consideration on how it could be expanded without increasing public safety issues, if it is the Missions goal to expand. I do, however; have reason to be concerned with the disallowance or revocation of Title 21.40.180.B.3.b because it would again affect me personally with the few options that I have available as long as I remain within this publicly documented illegally / erroneously zoned district. I will remind those of the Planning and Zoning Department that its mandate is to come up with solutions that work for the people of this community and not to burden the tax payers of this municipality unnecessarily in which all ‘grandfathering’ eventually does. These are the reasons that we have variances and conditional use permits. | |
| Barbara Garner | 2/10/2005 2:26:57 PM |
| Please consider the following: Will this allow the Rescue Mission to expand in its current Tudor Road location? The "Tudor Road Corridor Study" suggests it may be an inappropriate location for pedestrian safety reasons as Mission users cross the 5 lanes without using the nearby traffic signal. The neighborhood revitalization north of Tudor that is being addressed by a UACC ad hoc committee is concerned with the many mixed uses here. We urge that this zoning change NOT allow the Mission to expand beyond its grandfathered building. | |