HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM DISTRIBUTED AFTER AGENDA DISTRIBUTION - ITEM 1 AGENDA ITEM #1
Rabe, Erica
From: Reekstin, Scott
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:56 PM
To: Rabe, Erica
Cc: Johnson, Melissa
Subject: FW: FW: CODE AMENDMENT 2015-001 (ORDINANCE NO. 1454) - SECOND
RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT
From: Ali Edwards
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:50 PM
To: Reekstin, Scott
Subject: Re: FW: CODE AMENDMENT 2015-001 (ORDINANCE NO. 1454) - SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE
CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT
Mr. Reekstin,
Thank you for your response to my February 24th email re: CODE AMENDMENT 2015-001 (ORDINANCE
NO. 1454)
As I am unable to attend meetings on Tuesday nights I wanted to make sure to voice my opinion
again. I am including the text of my original email below, but here I will just briefly say that my family
does not support the proposed changes. We are concerned about increases in traffic and the
possibility of the neighborhood becoming overcrowded with two-story multi-unit dwellings.
If Old Town is to have increased housing for low-income residents and people with disabilities we
wold be happy to support that as part of a plan for development of the area. We believe in affordable
housing, but in this case it seems that housing for people with disabilities and low-income residents is
being used to promote this change at the back end rather than a true motivation for change. From
where I stand (realizing that I can't truly know what is in a person's heart), it seems disingenuous at
least, offensive at most.
I, again, respectfully ask that you do not vote in favor of this code amendment.
I thank you for your time and consideration of our feelings on the matter.
Sincerely,
Alison and Chris Edwards
From February 24, 2015
Dear Council Members,
I am writing as 1 am unable to attend tonight's meeting where Ordinance No. 1454 will he discussed. Thank you for the opportunity to share
my thoughts via email.
1
I moved to Old Town because I love walking the area. l love the trees and the architecture. In fact. when looking for a home,it was the only
place we wanted to look and we were absolutely thrilled to be able to buy a vacant and vandalized home. We have since fixed up the house,
got married in the backyard and are now raising our two children there.
/am not in favor of the current proposal as it stands.As a resident of the Old Town area I am concerned that permitting second residential
unit on lots of any size has the potential to change our neighborhood in ways that I would not prefer.
There are already some lots that have secondary units,one property in particular has multiple two-story units in the back. ht the time I have
lived here it has never been in good shape and is mostly covered in blacktop to create parking for the secondary units. On its own, this
property does not have much impact on the neighborhood.but should the City open the door for this type of arrangement to become more
common I believe it has the potential to change the whole neighborhood.
I have been to other historic neighborhoods that allow for secondary units and some of them are done very well, However,those units ore
one story, not up to 30 P.,as is allowed in the current code(Section 9123).
I would respectfully ask they you consider voting against this proposed change. Should you feel you must vote in favor, I would ask you to
consider maybe further amending Section 9123 to not allow the second residential units to be 30 ft. tall. Limiting them to a single story would
at least ensure that these units will not change the feel of the area too much.
Respectfully,
Alison(and Chris)Edwards
2