HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #6 Kellie O'Rourke & Penny Robbins3-31-15
Since the last meeting, a large number of us have combed over this Proposed Overlay countless times. We worked
to suggest additions, suggest deletions. We worked through deciphering the content that is already existing R-2
zoning law to which we are already bound, and worked to move around the content that is aimed at commercial
applications.
We reviewed all testimony from the past meeting from the public both for and against this proposal. We carefully
listened to all questions from the commission.
We decided to take the commission’s advice and research with city officials. We have also spoken with one of the
building inspectors.
After all the questions we had amongst ourselves, we really were never able to satisfy why we were trying to
change a word here or a sentence there, when it was appearing increasingly obvious that all tools ARE already in
the toolbox.
In keeping with the questions that several commission members asked, we were really forced to look at what we
could decipher the intent of this special interest group to be. We have narrowed that focus down to the
preventing of a home of the magnitude of that at the corner of 4th and Main entering our neighborhood.
Having determined that, we have determined that nothing in this proposal rises to the level that would require the
involvement of the government.
It appears quite clear to us that we only need to address TWO items within our own covenants:
1. We would insert language that would prevent the joining of two or more lots together.
2. Nobody in this room knows what materials for siding or roofing are coming down the pike, and we found it
exhausting trying to compile a list of what we felt was acceptable. We request that the special interest group be
transparent and simply TELL US what it is that they oppose. This way, if they are trying to prevent adobe, for
example, we simply insert that adobe is not an acceptable material choice for the Johnson Addition. The building
inspector with whom we spoke did assure us that neighborhood covenants are deferred to when there is no
specifying language in our R-2 zoning.
This is our recommendation. We received 100% support with these 2 simple sentences, whereas when we tried to
force issues or gain support for any changes in this proposal we could not. It is because when we work within the
structure provided to us by the very people who built the neighborhood, the covenants, this is where we will
receive the same effect but actually with the support of the neighborhood. This will ensure that we continue to
prosper in the least restrictive environment possible while achieving their goals.
We hereby request that the commission remand this issue back to the neighborhood where we feel it belongs. The
couple of points in question can quickly be hammered out by the special interest group and the representatives on
file with Adrienne: Jana, Penny and myself, and we can get to work on that both swiftly and painlessly. We can do
this with the guidance of Adrienne, if she is so willing, to see that this becomes a reality. We seem to be beginning
with the "last resort first" instead of the "first resort last." If our own group is used as an example, I think it is
obvious we will get the most support there.
Kellie O’Rourke
Penny Robbins