[OldNorth] RE: [OldNorthBoard]

[Andrew P. Wallace]

> Andy wrote:
> >For the Association not to take a position essentially
> >makes the Association meaningless.
>
> I must disagree with that...
>
> not taking a position means just that, we are not taking a position - at
> this time.

Dan, my point was is that we must make some formal statement from the
neighborhood association.  Addressing the City Council only as individuals
and not through the association is simply not as effective.

Furthermore, in all the email discussion, there has been very little
specific criticism of the work proposed in the Guideline Revisions.  I don't
see the "densification" statement as an issue directly related to the
guidelines.  The current requirements of setbacks, open space, parking
places, etc are what define what can and can not be built, not one person's
statement on densification.  The primary issue on the table is the R1/R2.
Esther has said repeatedly in many presentations that this is an ongoing
issue and must be fully evaluated at another time.  But, as Z has clarified,
the practical difference between R1/R2 is minimal.

With that said, I am in favor of the position that Dan put forward below
(specific wording aside), the statement should also include something
related to the parking situation/survey.

Regards,
Andy

 > ---
> We are strongly in favor of the Conservation District zoning. Let's get
> that passed.
> But the issue of zoning density - R1 vs R2 - needs to be addressed.
> Therefore, the Association will begin working with neighborhood residents
> to discuss the issue and get a sense of what the neighborhood wants. We
> look forward to working with City staff to develop appropriate zoning for
> the neighborhood.
> ---
> (or words to that effect).
>
> How's that?
>
> Dan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> oldnorth mailing list
> oldnorth at mailman.dcn.org
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/oldnorth