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. | |
|---|---|
| Clinton R Hodges II | 8/27/2006 7:28:22 AM |
| Under the current title 21, the percentage of lot coverage administrative variance is 32%. Apparently, someone has convinced the Mayor's office that the chart has been misinterpreted and that the actual lot coverage administrative variance should be 42%. I urge the Commission to not adopt the Administration's interpretation of the chart. For many years now the chart is interpreted by all land owners as 32%. Subsequently, all development in the R2 category of zoning districts comport to the 32% lot coverage administrative variance. Adopting a different interpretation of the chart would create huge differences in existing neighborhoods between the primary structures built under the current interpretation and structures yet to be built under a different interpretation. Additionally, it should be noted, that in a response to me, Planning and Zoning Director, Mr. Nelson, publicly stated that R-2M is poor land useage. His department, hiding behind the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, is looking for ways to increase the percentage of lot coverage by the primary structure. Their goal is create smaller lots with larger primary structures to support higher population densities ultimately destroying the character of many R2 zoned residential neighborhoods. Evidence supportive of my contention can be found in the first draft of the title rewrite where planning attempted to bump-up R-2M to R3, a higher population density. I urge the Commission to see this ordinance for what it is, an attempt to redefine the population densities of the R2 category of residential neighborhoods, and to vote against the Administrations smoke screen attempt to change the present interpretation as to the lot coverage administrative variance of 32%. | |
| L. Johnston | 8/4/2006 1:41:16 PM |
| The full ordinances are not available online so it is hard to speak to the proposal. Generally lot coverage should be determined by safety and owners' needs. Buildings should not obstruct drivers' vision nor utility access. Lot building coverage should not interfere with community drainage or ecological considerations. It is unacceptable to consider aesthetic values when determining the size of lot coverage because this priveleges the city's aesthetic values over those of the owners or community. | |
| Marjorie Feldman | 7/21/2006 8:25:47 AM |
| More information and specifics are needed. It is not at all clear what is intended. | |
| Clinton R Hodges II | 7/21/2006 8:09:06 AM |
| Under the current Title 21, the maximum lot coverage by the primary structure in an R2M zoned district is quite clear. Can you be more specific? | |
| Fran Durner | 7/20/2006 8:40:23 AM |
| Could you please explain exactly what the amended changes to the maximum lot coverage are? Thank you. | |