|
|
South River City Citizens (SRCC)
|
9/10/2007 unofficial general membership meeting notes
this month's meeting was on the 2nd monday of the month due to the labor day weekend.
1. treasurer's report: $188 was spent on signs for the
historic district project the fandango raise approx. $1500 during the
silent auction
2. time insurance zoning case: the
last public hearing on this issue was over 9 months ago so it's somewhat difficult for anyone to
follow but it is now set for 2nd and
3rd readings. with public hearings now over there are still major objections to this case:
a.
applicant claims the sole reason he needs the LI-PDA zoning is to have
a 0 foot front setback along the I-35
property so he can move his project
farther from the neighborhood. yet council has failed to require that the project be
moved away from the neighborhood and
it has failed to limit the applicability of the up- zoning to just the 0
foot front setback it provides.
b.
council has failed to exclude many commercial uses allowed under LI, which are inappropriate this
close to residential property.
c. council should choose between a project at
street level or a project on top of
the hill. clearly what is appropriate at current grade is not the same as what is
appropriate at street level. ;
d. council approved zoning for the 2 tracts
involved in these cases based on the
same conditions applied to the zoning by the planning commission. to
date (more than 8 months since the hearing), there have been no ordinance or
restrictive covenants detailing these conditions provided for review.
e. these up zonings will result in
devaluation of the abutting and nearby
single family properties.
f. staff did not recommend the LI-PDA up
zoning, citing city land use
principles (specifically, the requested zoning is not consistent with the purpose statement of
industrial zoning and zoning should
not grant a special privilege to an individual owner).
additionally, there are many questions we have asked staff
about this zoning
which remain unanswered: sec 25-2-174 states that the purpose of a PDA
combining district is to "(2)
incorporate the terms of a planned development area agreement into a zoning ordinance
following annexation of a property
that is subject to a [PDA] agreement."
a. shouldn't the agreement already exist when the zoning is applied for?
b. and shouldn't the agreement be available
for public review?
c. both of the properties involved (2
separate cases--one for GR-MU and
one for LI-PDA) are within the 1946 city limits so what does this annexation refer to? can property be re-annexed?
d. perhaps most importantly: what exactly
does a PDA allow on this property?
3. travis
park apartments (live oak across from travis high
school): received unsatisfactory score/report by southwest housing compliance corporation for poor management
of section 8 housing - they
recommend new management. thanks to terry and
others for working to identify
problems and improve the living conditions of the residents of this complex.
4. travis heights elementary: they are still looking for
volunteer tutors - those interested
please contact terry franz
|