-
To respond privately, use the "Reply" command.
To post to the list "Forward" to [at]
-
Thanks for the response Patrick.
Here is my specific idea.
I would respectfully ask that the neighborhood Planning Team reverse
their decision to recommend a
VMU designation for the properties on Koenig that are West of the
railroad track and to draft a letter to this effect
to be presented at the upcoming City Council meeting.
These properties include the Gas Company, Howards, Parkers, the
apartments, and the church lot.
These lots face unique challenges due to their location - sandwiched
between a throughway with a median
and residential streets.
In the case of the Endeavor proposal, economics dictated a central
parking garage with a primary entry/exit on the South side.
The resulting traffic was the primary reason for neighborhood
opposition to this project. People living in adjacent and near
properties,
(who unfortunately were not given the opportunity to participate in
early discussions with the developers) were almost unanimously
against the project.
Nearby property owners (in this case and others in the future) SHOULD
BE CONSULTED by the NA and the Planning Team
on matters that will effect them. And their opinions should be
RESPECTED.
There is a big difference between VMU and MU designations. It can in
fact be a difference of 100% (or more) in terms of number of units
that can be built on a given site.
That is not a trivial bump in density.
Developers will have more than enough economic incentive to seek a VMU
approval from the neighborhood on these
Koenig lots. They are some of the largest lots near the city center.
A VMU designation is probably the best choice for these lots, but the
particular site design of a given project makes all the difference in
the world.
By volunteering/recommending a VMU designation up front, the
neighborhood is saying "any project that fits the strict guidelines of
VMU is ok by us."
I think it would be much wiser to hold a neighborhood recommendation
for VMU on a given lot until we see a particular site plan. Or in
other words,
to grant a VMU designation on a case by case basis. This has been the
choice of most planning teams, and I think with good reason.
Choosing a "case-by-case" basis approach would allow us to be more
discriminating.
This is analogous to a single woman choosing to date SOME men that ask
her out, but not ANY AND ALL men that ask her out.
Besides the obvious problems of traffic and parking we should also
consider other problems/conditions that may result from an any-VMU-
will-do approach.
Would we want, for instance a massive block of predominantly student
apartments that stretched from the church lot all the way to the
railroad track?
I'm not trying to pick on students. The point is that, like the
Howard's project, development on these sites could be ALL rentals
under VMU.
Due to the increased density that VMU affords, the Koenig lots could
house many more residents (renters) than the entire population of the
rest of the neighborhood combined.
Generally speaking a high percentage of home (or condo, apartment,
townhouse etc.) ownership is much more desirable as compared to a
transient population of renters.
We should fear and guard against becoming Student Getto North - a path
that the Super 2's have unfortunately set us on.
For all of these reasons I again would request that the Planning Team
please reconsider their position in recommending a blanket VMU
designation for these properties.
It does not mean that we, as a neighborhood, are AGAINST VMU, only
that we would like to see and approve only the best kinds of projects
that would be a
benefit to a neighborhood that we all care a lot about.
Would anyone on the Planning Team consider calling an emergency
meeting to hear from residents on this matter and to consider a
modification in the Team's
official position prior to the City Council meeting?
The upcoming NA meeting (on Monday) will bring most of the PT members
together.
Would you guys on the PT be willing to meet and talk about this just
after the NA meeting?
If we need to vacate the church I would be more than happy to host
people here at my house at 100 W 55th - just a short walk away.
Best,
Jody Horton
On Jan 30, 2008, at 7:08 AM, Patrick Goetz wrote:
> -
> To respond privately, use the "Reply" command.
> To post to the list "Forward" to [at]
> -
>
> jody horton wrote:
>> I'm really hoping that over the next weeks the planning team and
>> other neighbors can discuss modifying the neighborhood's official
>> recommendation to
>> include a request for limited access through the neighborhood and
>> some suggestions for alleviating parking overflow.
>>
>
> Unless you have some specific ideas, I'm not sure how this could be
> accomplished. In general, the city is loathe to restrict traffic
> flow, and the few instances where they've tried it have been a
> failure. A good example is the road block that was installed at
> 40th and Marathon at the neighborhood's request when Central Market
> was built in order to prevent "thousands of cars from driving down
> 40th to get to and from Central Market". In the end, it seems the
> only one this has really inconvenienced is the neighborhood, and the
> ones who drive probably wish they'd never asked for it in the first
> place.
>
>
>> I'm trying to figure out what we would loose by opting in on a case-
>> by-case basis. Or what we gain by designating these all at once.
>> Can anyone speak to that? What does everyone else think?
>
> Fairness? A manageable plan? Think about it. Suppose you own 5643
> Flibbertygibbit Dr. and Cody owns 5641 Flibbertygibbit Dr. right
> next door. The neighborhood decides to grant you VMU zoning, but
> not Cody because no one really likes him that much. How would this
> be fair, or manageable? And no matter what reason the neighborhood
> gives for opting out 5641, who's to say that the real reason isn't
> to stick it to Cody? The ability to opt out specific properties was
> introduced strictly to preserve so-called iconic businesses (a
> debatable concern in and of itself, since it doesn't consider the
> owner's wishes at all). I haven't spent any time looking at what's
> been done, but it wouldn't surprise me if some neighborhoods have
> used this provision to create a nonsensical patchwork of mixed-use
> zoning based on the personal prejudices of those active in the
> neighborhood association. VMU is unlikely to make much difference
> in land use and doesn't dramatically change entitlements, but if it
> did, the end result would be (and still might be) more lawsuits for
> the city, which costs all of us money and services, with the likely
> outcome that those who got opted out will be opted back in by the
> court system.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in messages are solely that of the
> author
> and not of the list administrators nor Druma Inc (sponsor 14gram.com).
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Unsubscribe & "howto" info, send a blank email to nndl-
> [at]
> -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in messages are solely that of the author
and not of the list administrators nor Druma Inc (sponsor 14gram.com).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe & "howto" info, send a blank email to [at]
-
Post new comment