I am sure the closest I will ever get to a pat on the back from the PubDog is having my name in the title to the article, spelled right at least.

I can’t explain why others voted the way they did because I am not them and am not charged with speaking for them. My approach started with the premise, advanced by City Staff, that the change would conform the ordinance to it’s original intent and correct a misinterpretation. We were told repeatedly that you can’t define one zoning district by reference to another. Since there is no defined district that corresponds to the area zoned B-4 in the Central Business District, I voted to allow the R-5 zoning to be placed in the area defined as the Central Business District. I would revisit your review of the amount by which this expands the area where R-5 can be placed. There is no way it represents a 75% increase over the B-4 area. Only the area surrounded by the dark line on your map is in the Central Business District, and most of that is already B-4. But then, 75% sounds more dramatic so go for it.

I listen to citizen input and consider it when voting. That will not always mean I do everything that is suggested by citizens.

This may not be comforting to you, but you do realize that the R-5 zoning does not exist anywhere other than the Executive Plaza area approved by the P&Z commission before I joined it. In order for anyone to obtain the benefits of the R-5 designation, they will have to make a presentation to the P&Z Commission and the City Council, at which I trust citizens will again appear and hope to be heard. At that point we can have a very legitimate debate on whether more condos are appropriate anywhere in the Central Business District or not. I won’t prejudged that debate because I have to listen to both the applicant and the opponents of any proposal. I will tell you that the key for me will not be whether a developer can make money on a project or not. I find that to be irrelevant to the City. The key will be the impact on the City, traffic and the effect the development will have on the City after the developers have made their money and moved on. As far as I know, zoning ordinances exist for the City to make choices about how it will develop, without unduly burdening property owners in utilizing their land. If we do that, we have met our obligation and can restrict or deny development in places it does not fit.

In any event, keep up the good fight. I don’t expect to agree with everything you say, and I don’t expect you to agree with or like everything I do. Nevertheless the questions and positions you promote are necessary to insure a good debate on the issues that face the City.

You have to give Baldi credit for spunk. But when you cut through all his babbling, he is just ducking the residential density issue and punting it to some future time – probably when he hopes he’s no longer on the P&Z.

By voting to allow R-5 in the Central Business District rather than limit it to the B-4 area, however, he is enabling the expansion of R-5 to a much larger area without giving any reason for WHY we need or want R-5 beyond the B-4 boundaries.

But I guess it’s too much to expect for him to “man up” and actually say: “I’m for greater residential density in Uptown.” So he mumbles about tangential matters and how somebody else might deal with it in the future. There’s leadership for you.

Why more condos.

Greed I suppose.

I also give Mr. Baldi credit for “facing the music.” But I think he and others have missed the most important point. His premise is that expanding the R-5 district does not necessarily mean that the tallest condos will be allowed in that expanded district, because each proposed development will be evaluated on its own merit. Unfortunately, that is not how it works. If a developer wants to build a 45 foot condo in the expanded area, the first words out of his mouth will be “it’s allowed, I’m not asking for any variance”; and the history of how things work in this town reflect that the powers-that-be will dutifully roll over and let it happen. This is NOT, I repeat NOT, a correction of a typo or a slight adjustment. I don’t know if the new provision adds 50%, 75% or whatever to the area allowed for R-5, but Joe, I can read a map. A large area up near me adjacent to the Trader Joe’s is not in the R-5 area now but will be if this goes through, including a substantial area north of Northwest Highway. It would scar our neighborhood forever. I will fight it tooth and nail.

Dave, I hate to burst your bubble, but you can’t read a map. Look at the “good size chunks” pdf that the PubDog included in his post. It accurately highlights the areas in the Central Business District that are not currently in the B-4 area. The only space north of Northwest Highway that is not in the B-4 area is a stretch between Touhy and Grant Place from Washington east almost to Prospect. I believe there is a church there and a 3 story apartment building. Otherwise, everything else was already in the B-4 area that is north of Northwest Highway.

Also, if you look at the area that is added because we used the Central Business District as the boundary, much of it is already zoned high density or used for business. The area next to Trader Joe’s is the Napleton Cadilac dealership site and the existing townhouses. Napleton has a free pass to be included in the Uptown development as soon as he finds a sucker, er buyer, for his property. The townhouses won’t be redeveloped in our lifetime. Likewise, the area shown as being added at the corner of Euclid and Summit already has the tallest condo building in town located on it (Summit Condos). The B-2 area north of Touhy and south of the tracks is where Napelton’s Lincoln dealership is located. Last I heard, he was not giving up that parcel.

The area that is problematic is the portion south of Main bounded by Cumberland and Garden which includes Third street and the parking lots in that area. That area is partly residential now and it backs up on a residential area. Carrie made the comment at the P&Z meeting that this area would be harder to get zoned R-5 because of the preference in the Comprehensive Plan that this be a lower density area. I don’t take that much comfort in that explanation, but it is certainly something I will raise with any developer that wants to put an R-5 area there. I also don’t like R-5 in that area because it fronts single family areas without any transition. I think there should be transitions or buffers between these areas if at all possible.

So, as with much that gets the evil eye in these blogs, most of the area that is being “added” as eligible for R-5 either won’t be developed or would probably benefit from it (The Summit Retirement Home is being added at the corner of Summit and Touhy. And remember, too, Dave, that you and I are amoung the “powers that be”. If we don’t go along, maybe others will join us.

Mr. Baldi, the 75% figure that you are belittling comes from taking all of the dark-shaded areas of the Central Business District on the “map” (which we understand was prepared by CURRB and is accurate) and superimposing them onto the B-4 area – thereby covering approximately 75% of that B-4 area. Those dark shaded areas are not, repeat NOT, 75% of the entire Central Business District, nor have we ever said they were.

Making substantive “policy” decisions about the future character of our community is not the same as micro-managing the zoning process with subjective ad hoc remarks such as “I also don’t like R-5 in that area because it fronts single family areas without any transition.” Nor is it the same as making purely speculative predictions such as “most of the area that is being ‘added’ as eligible for R-5…won’t be developed.” But assuming that prediction were ultimately proved true, how does that justify making it R-5 susceptible?

Finally, ducking legitimate policy deicisions that should be made in the present by predicting how current city officials (including current P&Z members) might deal with future zoning issues is stunningly irresponsible. And when it’s considered in light of the City’s track record on such matters, it borders on the insane.

But thanks for writing, and please keep those comments coming: They are extremely enlightening (albeit disturbing); and we trust that our readers appreciate being enlightened by them as well.

Joe, Joe, Joe…my whole point is that if you think an area is inappropriate for an R-5, then don’t zone it that way. Zoning it R-5 and then saying you won’t support a tall condo in that area is most definitely closing the barn door long after the horse has gone.

I must tell you sirs, in a weird way this exchange is riveting!

I cannot remember the last time I saw any of our officials discuss anything in this sort of open way.

Thank you!

Dave, just to reiterate, there is no area except Executive Plaza which is zoned R-5. It is an unmapped zoning district that will not be used unless and until someone comes in and asks that it be applied to somewhere in the Central Business District.

There is, of course, an alternative here. The counsel can vote to create a “Core Uptown Area” which consists of the area currently zoned B-4 and then limit the R-5 zoning designation to parcels in the Core Uptown Area. If that is what the Council thinks is appropriate.

Bingo Joe! That is exactly what I was thinking. Great minds think alike, but perhaps in different ways.

I still think you are missing my point about the danger of setting a policy which says R-5s are OK in such a huge area. Based on what I have seen in the last 3 years, the powers that be which I spoke of before will let an applicant, any applicant, build up to the max height allowed in any given area…Comprehensive Plan (or Executive Plaza Plan) be damned. Therefore, the entire Central Business District would be wide open to the tallest and highest density developments, and most if not all of that entire area is surrounded by single family residential neighborhoods. This is the worst possible thing we can do to our city. The thought of 4 story condos lining the north side of Northwest Highway and at the old Napleton site makes me sick to my stomach. I don’t know the area south of the tracks as well, but I’m sure there are people sick to their stomachs as well at the thought of this measure.