Laserfiche WebLink
Session 1827 <br />December 3, 2001 <br /> <br />wishes to discuss what he believes is an inequity in the Zoning Code, which he in fact <br />drafted, some thirty years ago. The SR district was drafted and named by him. Al <br />Goldman, the previous director of Planning, and his partner, Richard Ward, devised the <br />SR district at a time when University City and neighborhoods like the one we are <br />speaking about tonight were static. Today, Council is faced with a question of <br />redevelopment of the very district that he helped create. The SR district is no longer <br />adequate. He believes that the Council has discretion, and the Council has created this <br />discretion in the subdivision code. The Council could create discretion, as well, in the <br />Zoning Code. He believes that the district code, as it stands, is flawed. The developers <br />that our long time citizens are facing come in quick, redevelop, make money - then <br />move on. The citizens are here to protest the change of the character of the <br />neighborhood that they live in, not to protest higher taxes. If the Council votes in favor <br />of this subdivision, then they will not be protecting the interests of these citizens. <br /> <br />Mr. Ollendorff asked Mr. Pratter if it would help if the lot next to his client were 20% <br />larger than what is required by law. Mr, Pratl:er said that what has happened is that we <br />have small lots with big houses with a very small setback. This is the primary problem. <br />Making the lot bigger and still having a five foot setback is only going to allow for an <br />even bigger house to be built and you will end up with the same problem. <br /> <br />Mr. Ollendorff said that Mr. Pratter was protesting the five foot setback proposed by the <br />developer. Mr. Ollendorff continued by saying that the code requires a five foot setback, <br />as well, his point being that the plan will not change the required setback. Mr. Pratter <br />responded that the problem with the setback right now versus what it will be, is that you <br />have a one story house with a five foot setback - you're going to end up with a five foot <br />setback and a house on a slope. There will more than likely end up being a forty foot <br />house next to a one story house and that is what will create a canyon problem. Mr. <br />Ollendorff stated that the maximum height allowed by the ordinance is thirty-five feet, <br />Mr. Pratter said that was correct, but that the measurement goes through the mean of <br />the roof and due to the fact it is on a slope will certainly look like a forty foot house. <br /> <br />Betsy Nimock, 300 Gay, wanted to thank the City for this opportunity to interact with <br />local government. She is not a lawyer, but she looks at this pretty simply. Her job is to <br />protect her property and way of life. The developer's job is to make money. She <br />doesn't want this to sound crass, because developer's have their place. It is not their <br />fault. What concerns her is that she would see the Council's job, as public servants, to <br />protect their constituents. She doesn't understand what it could possibly be that would <br />tie the Council's hands in a way to give a developer anything they want. This does not <br />make any sense to her. She doesn't understand the legalities involved, but she does <br />appreciate being here to discuss this and she also really wants to believe that the <br />Council wants the best for the citizens. <br /> <br />Pat Tracy, 512 Mapleview, said that she has lived in that house for fifty years. She <br />requests that the character of the neighborhood be protected as the suburban <br /> <br /> <br />