Mailbag: Karen Writes: RE: Traditional Neighborhood Design Minutes: Feedback

(Ed.Note: This comment belongs under the TND minutes, but raises some of the issues that are on the front burner. )


Here is what I had to say if you think it is worth posting. I tried to
post
it under the minutes of the TND.


I would like to point out a few things in these minutes that I
notice. First I will admit that minutes sometimes don't accurately
reflect
what gets said or the intent of the words spoken. But this is what we
have, so I will offer my thoughts for discussion or correction.

Mason defends the hundreds of homeowners who wish to finish their
basements. They appear to have been saved. But for everyone else who
dreams of adding on a bedroom or sunroom, or perhaps an attached
garage,
these people continue to be at risk since Mr Schwecke explains the
intent
is for changes to the perimeter, or as I understand "footprint" of the
home.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find copies of these documents on the
cities
website, so I regret any mistakes that I may be making, but as I try to
understand all of what is being discussed in the various committees
relating to our housing stock both current and future, it seems to me a
constant is the desire for diversity, yet restricting changes to
existing
footprints, seems to discourage the very diversity the city seeks.
What
better candidate for enlargement than a small starter home? I expect
the
answer is a homeowner *can* make changes, provided the changes are
pre-approved by some authority.

What this says to me, is that at worst we will no longer own our homes
as
we understand ownership to be, but rather the city will assume first
rights to the appearance of our property, and we, much like a renter,
will
need to ask permission before we can alter our homes. If I am correct,
then I find this very disturbing.

Bill Hammann goes on the speak about a proposed sliding point scale
depending on the house size. I respectfully disagree with him, as I
see
that as unequal taxation. But then I see the whole thing as an overstep
of
the role of Government.

Next presumably the written draft ordinance provides some background
information in support of the City's need for a non required Accessible
Housing Ordinance.

I'm also curious about this bit: "Schwecke noted that this addresses
some
concerns about single family residences such as short-term rental
property
and RV parking." I didn't know there were concerns, and I would hope
that
those concerns get identified and explained before anyone buys a camper
this summer and finds they won't be able to store it on their property.

From reading minutes of some previous meetings of some committee (it's
becoming too hard for me to keep track since I find many committees
duplicate topics), I had the sense members were advising Mr. Schwecke
to
back-off a bit on creating such a regulatory state.

It would be helpful to understand what the desired outcome or goal is
of
all of the proposed regulations. They do seem to be overly detailed
and
often conflicting at some levels.

We keep hearing of diversity, yet the proposed new fence ordinance is
so
precise that there is little room left for creative expression. I found
it
conflicting that Mr. Schwecke alone approved the front fence for
Romano's
the same week he recommended the ordinance that would have prevented
such a
fence. And though smaller homes "most need additional diversity," to
change the footprint would require permission.

If we are looking to mix-up new developments, and can't leave it to the
developers agreement, couldn't we simply require 2-4 home styles within
each size category and no two styles or identical facades can be within
2-3
homes of each other?

Clearly this is the kind of thing that gets me going. I can only hope
they
pass an ordinance against local blogs so I can go back to watching TiVo
after the kids go to bed!

Karen Aikman


DeleteReplyForwardSpamMove...