LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING
[00:00:01]
TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.[Call to Order - Item 1 (Part 1 of 2)]
IF YOU ALL DON'T MIND, PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS.WELCOME TO THE WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21ST, 2021 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ZONING MEETING ALL ITEMS ON THE ATTACHED AGENDA OR FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
THE RULES FOR CONDUCTING SUCH PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS.
UH, THIS IS A PUBLIC MEETING IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE ONE SECTIONS 1.2
ALL ITEMS ON THIS AGENDA ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE GIVEN IN PERSON AT THE RIVER CENTER BRANCH LIBRARY, TWO 50 NORTH BOULEVARD, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA FOURTH FLOOR MEETING ROOM DURING THE MEETING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DESIRING TO SPEAK ON A PARTICULAR ITEM SHOULD REFER TO A MEETING AGENDA AND COMPLETE NECESSARY INFORMATION.
PRIOR TO MEETING MY FILLING OUT A REQUEST TO SPEAK CARD AND INDICATING WHICH ITEM YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON AND PLACE IT IN THE DESIGNATED LOCATION.
ONCE THE ITEM IS ANNOUNCED EACH PERSON'S NAME WHO HAS COMPLETED THE CARD WILL BE CALLED ON TO SPEAK FOR THE AMOUNT OF TIME DESIGNATED BY MYSELF, WHICH WILL BE THREE MINUTES.
THE PROPONENTS WILL SPEAK FIRST AGAIN, LET ME SAY THAT THE PROPONENTS WILL SPEAK FIRST.
THEN THE OPPONENTS, EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED NOT MORE THAN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK AS ARE REQUESTED TO LIMIT THEIR REMARKS, TO AVOID DUPLICATION OF THEIR PRESENTATIONS.
SO AGAIN, THE PROPONENTS, THOSE WHO AFFORD THE ITEM WILL SPEAK FIRST IN THE OPPONENTS.
THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST THE ITEM WILL SPEAK SECOND.
THE PROPONENTS WILL BE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.
THE COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY ASK QUESTIONS AND MAKE COMMENTS, BUT OUR URGE TO COOPERATE IN AN EFFORT TO SPEND NOT MORE THAN 30 MINUTES ON ONE ZONING CASE, ASHLEY, DO WE HAVE A CORN? WE HAVE A QUORUM COUNCIL MEMBERS.
FIRST I SPURRED FOUR DASH 21 EQUESTRIAN COURT, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED LOW DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY, LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF INTERSECTION OF JEFFERSON HIGHWAY AND CAMERON AVENUE, NORTH EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF JEFFERSON HIGHWAY AND SOUTH CARROLLTON AVENUE, DISTRICT 11 ADAMS COMMISSION ACTION, MOTION TO APPROVE NINE ZERO, UH, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
WE DO HAVE ALMOST A HUNDRED EMAILS THAT WILL NEED TO BE READ FOR THE RECORD.
AND WE DO HAVE SOME VISITORS WITH US OVER AT THE LIBRARY.
SO AT THIS TIME, UH, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE PROPONENTS, THOSE WHO ARE IN FAVOR AND ALLOWED THEM TO SPEAK FIRST, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN AT THE LIBRARY, YOU, YOU, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES AND AN EFFORT NOT TO BE RUDE AND RESPECT YOU AND YOUR TIME.
UH, PLEASE TRY TO ADHERE TO THAT THREE MINUTE TIMEFRAME.
UH, IF NOT, WE, UH, WE'LL BE GIVING, UH, MOTIONING AND LETTING DENNIS KNOW TO LET YOU KNOW WHEN YOUR TIME IS ALMOST UP.
SO AS YOU COME TO THE MIC, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
MY ADDRESS IS 3,902 LEE STREET, ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA.
I AM PRESIDENT OF RADCLIFFE DEVELOPMENT.
I AM THE DEVELOPER OF RECORD FOR QUESTIONING COURT.
AND, UM, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I'LL, I'LL SUMMARIZE WHAT MY COMMENTS ARE.
UM, SO WE LOOKED AT THIS PROJECT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
WE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE ISSUES WOULD BE, UH, DRAINAGE TRAFFIC.
AND WE BROUGHT IN A VERY WELL QUALIFIED AND CONFIDENT CIVIL ENGINEER DESIGN TEAM OUT OF BATON ROUGE.
UM, THE PLANETS, THEY DID AN EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD JOB AT WHAT WE ASKED THEM TO DO.
UM, OF COURSE WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH.
UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUS COMPLAINTS ARE, UH, DRAINAGE ISSUES THAT EXIST TO THE REAR OF THIS PROPERTY, WHICH ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PRIVATE LANDOWNERS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE UPSET THAT THE CITY DOES NOT MAINTAIN THEIR DRAINAGE STRUCTURE.
UH, AS I SAID, IN MY LETTER TO THE COUNCIL, WE, WE HAVE NO OPINION ON THIS MATTER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
OUR PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO AGGREGATE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE STORMWATER CREATED BY THIS PROJECT AND REDIRECTED IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO, TO A MITIGATING EXISTING PROBLEM.
AND B NOT PUT ANY FURTHER PRESSURE ON, ON THE SITUATION.
UM, OUR ENGINEER HAS TOLD US THAT THIS PROJECT HAS A LOWER DENSITY THAN THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE THERE IN BOTH DRAINAGE AND TRAFFIC.
UM, ALL THIS MATERIAL WAS PRESENTED TO THE CITY.
UH, IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE CITY REQUIREMENTS, NOT ONLY THAT IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH FUTURE BR PLAN, WHICH, UM, SOME OF YOU HAD A HAND IN CRAFTING.
UM, I HAVE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE DENSITY.
I WILL GO BACK TO THE FUTURE BR
[00:05:01]
PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED.UH, IT SAYS SPECIFICALLY IN AREAS LIKE OLD GOODWOOD ALONG MAJOR TRAFFIC ORDERS, THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE A DENSITY GREATER THAN EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE.
OURS IS DESIGNED TO HAVE A 6.47 DENSITY PER ACRE.
IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT SOMEHOW BY DECREASING THE DENSITY OF THIS PROJECT, THAT IT WOULD BE MORE ACCOMMODATING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'VE LOOKED AT THAT ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS.
UM, WE LOOKED AT IT BEFORE THE PROJECT BEGAN.
UH, WE LOOKED AT IT AFTER THE PROJECT WAS STARTED AND WE'VE LOOKED AT IT AS, AS RECENTLY AS, AS THREE DAYS AGO, OUR CONSTRUCTION DIVISION HAS REAL-TIME ACCESS TO WHAT COSTS REALLY ARE IN BOTH CONCRETE AND STEEL.
UM, I MYSELF HAVE EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND REAL ESTATE.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT ANYONE THAT SUGGESTS THAT THIS PROJECT SHOULD HAVE LESS DENSITY DOES NOT HAVE A FIRM GRASP ON WHAT CURRENT COSTS ARE TO BUILD A PROJECT OF THIS NATURE.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND APPRECIATE ANY COMMENTS THAT YOU HAVE.
ANY OTHER PROPONENTS? ANY OTHER PROPONENTS? YES, SIR.
I'M GARY LITTLEFIELD, 1165 MELANIE STREET IN BROADMORE SUBDIVISION.
I AM THE MARKET PRESIDENT FOR GULF COAST.
THEY CAN TRUST COMPANY AND I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF DR.
RONALDSON SUPPORTED THE PROPOSED ASFA, THE FORMAL RUNELS PRESCHOOL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 64 55 JEFFERSON HIGHWAY, BOTH DR RONALD'S AND MRS. RONALD'S ARE OVER 80 YEARS OLD ARE UNFORTUNATELY EXPERIENCING SOME HEALTH ISSUES AT THE PRESENT TIME AS THEIR FRIEND AND THEIR BIKER.
I APPEAR BEFORE YOU ON THEIR BEHALF TO APPRISE YOU OF THE FOLLOWING WHERE THE RONALD SCHOOL PROPERTY WAS LISTED FOR SALE, MULTIPLE OFFERS WERE RECEIVED.
ALL THE OFFERS WERE CONDITIONAL ON THE PROPERTY BEING RESILIENT.
REYNOLDS INTO HER ENTERED INTO A PURCHASE GRIP TO SELL A PROPERTY CONDITION.
RONALD SIGNED THE APPLICATION FOR ZONING AND IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROPOSED BY RED CLIFF DEVELOPMENT, AFTER MUCH PUBLIC DISCUSSION, THE DEVELOPER ADDRESS, LEGITIMATE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS THAT THE FEBRUARY MEETING AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE PROJECT.
AS YOU KNOW, BY UNANIMOUS NINE TO ZERO VOTE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR AN INFIELD SMALL DEVELOP SMALL PLAY IN UNIT DEVELOPMENT, EXCUSE ME, IS CONSISTENT WITH THESE BATON ROUGE PARISH.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES AND CONFORMS TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS.
RONALD'S HAS DEVOTED OVER 50 YEARS TO EDUCATING THE CHILDREN ARE THESE BEVERAGE PAIRS BECAUSE THE FORMER RONALD SCHOOL BOARD, HIS NAME MANY PEOPLE ASSUME THAT HE'S WEALTHY.
THE PRESCHOOL PROPERTY IS HIS MOST SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL ASSET.
REALIZING THE FULL BAG OF THIS PROPERTY IS CRITICAL TO DR AND MRS. RONALD'S FINANCIAL RETIREMENT.
IT WAS SAYING THAT NOW IS THE TIME TO STICK TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS.
WE HAVE ALL SET FORTH AS A COMMUNITY INSTEAD OF ALLOWING A HANDFUL OF PERSONAL PREFERENCES TO IMPOSE AN OUTSIDE INFLUENCE ON THE APPROVAL OF A LEGITIMATE DEVELOPMENT.
ANY OTHER PROPONENTS, ANY OTHER PROPONENTS HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE? HEY, ROBBIE TURNER HERE, UM, 69 61 GOVERNMENT STREET, I'M, UH, RIGHT NEXT TO A TAJ OR WHATEVER.
UM, AND, UM, I'M VERY MUCH, UH, IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT BECAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENED ON GOVERNMENT STREET IS PRETTY MUCH EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE.
AND ALL THAT DID WAS HELP THE IMMEDIATE AREA AROUND IT.
YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT WAS SITTING THERE BACON, AND NOW THERE'S, THERE'S, UH, SIX HOUSES ON THAT.
I THINK THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT, WHETHER IT'S LEGAL OR NOT SOUNDS LIKE IT IS.
BUT, UM, AND AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED HAS HELPED OUR PROPERTY VALUES.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'VE ADDRESSED THE DRAINAGE ISSUES, WHICH IS ALWAYS A PROBLEM IN OLD GOODWOOD.
SO, UH, I THINK THEY'VE GONE TO A LOT OF STEPS TO ENGINEER THAT.
AND SO, UH, THAT'S JUST, I'M JUST IN FAVOR OF IT.
ANY OTHER PROPONENTS? SPEAKING OF ITEM ONE, GOOD AFTERNOON, STUART GRAY NINE EIGHT ZERO CARROLLTON AT OLD GOODWOOD.
I'M SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT.
[00:10:01]
HAS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED TRAFFIC AND DRAINAGE CONCERNS.UH, AS MR. TARTER JUST ALLUDED TO, UH, I FEEL THAT THIS ONE WE SERVE TO ENHANCE THE IMMEDIATE AREA AND ADD VALUE TO EXISTING HOMEOWNERS PROPERTY WHILE HAVING MINIMAL IMPACT TO THE OVERALL AREA.
I'M TOM MARAY 1315 SOUTH CARROLLTON.
MY PROPERTY IS ABOUT 150 FEET AWAY FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
WE WANT TO BE HERE TO VOICE MY SUPPORT THIS DEVELOPMENT.
IN MY OPINION, THAT'LL INCREASE THE PROPERTY VALUES OF EVERYONE AND OLD GOODWOOD.
IT'S A NICE ADDITION TO OUR COMMUNITY AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO GRILL THE DEVELOPER AND HIS ENGINEER SEVERAL TIMES IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS AND SATISFIED WITH THEIR ANSWERS TO, UH, ADDRESS THE TRAINING'S CONCERNS, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, UH, BECAUSE HE HAS TO COME HERE AND GET SOME APPROVAL TO DO WHAT HE'S DOING.
HE'S MADE AND HE'S MADE CONCESSIONS.
OTHERWISE WE'D HAVE TO BE MADE IF THERE WASN'T A ZONING ISSUE.
THOSE CONCESSIONS ARE TOO, NOT JUST NEGATIVE, NOT JUST TO BE A NO NET, INCREASE THE DRAINS, BUT ACTUALLY TO OFFER TO THE NEIGHBORS IN A WAY TO IMPROVE THE DRAINAGE IN A WAY THAT THE CITY IS NOT ABLE TO TOUCH AT THIS TIME.
SO I JUST WANT TO BE HERE TO PUT MY VOTE IN MY OPINION, ON THAT.
ANY OTHER PROPONENTS HERE AT THIS TIME SHOWING NONE? WE'RE GONNA READ THE, UH, OH, OKAY.
HAVING LIVED THERE FOR SOME 50 YEARS.
UH, MY CHILDREN WENT TO ROME OF COURSE ARE VERY MUCH IN MY ERA, DR.
ROOM'S SCHOOL, PROBABLY MY GRANDCHILDREN.
WELL, UH, UH, THE, UH, THE ZONING REQUEST OCCUPY GRANT SITUATIONS ARE CHANGING ALONG JEFFERSON HIGHWAY, THEIR APARTMENT HOUSES, THEIR SHOPPING CENTERS, AND, UH, THEY, TRAFFIC WILL NOT BE CHANGED BY 26 NEW PEOPLE.
I CAN ASSURE YOU THE TRAFFIC THAT RONALD SCHOOL GENERATED WITH THE FAR WHORE.
ANY OTHER PROPONENTS? I'LL WAIT A FEW MOMENTS THIS TIME.
DENNIS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE, YOU GOT THAT'S A PROPONENT ON OPPONENT.
THE OPPONENTS ARE, WE'RE GOING TO BE OPPONENTS.
WE'RE GOING TO READ THE EMAILS FROM THOSE IN SUPPORT BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE OPPONENTS.
THE, UH, FIRST PROPONENT, UM, ON ITEM ONE IS FROM AMELIA CAMPBELL.
THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL ABSOLUTELY BE A BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE CURRENT PROPERTY IS FILLED WITH MOLD, MUSKY AND MOSQUITO INFESTATION.
TURNING THIS INTO A BEAUTIFUL RESIDENTIAL AREA WILL BENEFIT PROPERTY VALUES AND GET RID OF THE HORRIBLE DRAINAGE PROBLEM, DECAYING BUILDINGS, AND OVERGROWN.
THE DEVELOPER LIVES NEXT DOOR TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
I CAN'T SEE HIM DOING ANYTHING THAT WOULD NEGATE HIS OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY.
MY REASONS FOR SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ARE ONE.
THE RESIDENCES WILL BE HIGH END AND POSITIVELY IMPACT THE VALUE OF PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY.
NUMBER TWO, THE DEVELOPER HAS DEMONSTRATED A CONCERN FOR NEIGHBORING NEIGHBORHOOD OBJECTIONS AND HAS MET A KEY OBJECTION REGARDING DRAINAGE.
THE SECONDARY POINT ABOUT THERE BEING TOO MANY RESIDENCES ON THE PROPERTY SEEMS UP IN THE SEAMS, UP IN THE MARKETPLACE TO D UP TO THE MARKETPLACE TO DETERMINE IF NO ONE BUYS THEM.
THAT WOULD BE ONE THING, BUT THERE ARE NUMEROUS SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THROUGHOUT BATON ROUGE THAT ARE THRIVING.
URBAN DENSITY IS THE MODEL FOR OUR FUTURE.
AS A CITY, CONSIDER THE PETITIONS OF APARTMENTS LOCATED JUST ACROSS JEFFERSON HIGHWAY FROM OLD GOODWOOD.
HAVE THEY REDUCED PROPERTY VALUE IN OLD GOODWOOD? NOT IN THE LEAST ANDY BATESON, I'VE LIVED ON JEFFERSON HIGHWAY SEVEN HOUSES DOWN FROM THEIR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOR 26 YEARS.
THIS INFILL DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE ZERO IMPACT ON ME OR ANYONE ELSE ON JEFFERSON HIGHWAY, A BUSY STREET, BY THE WAY, AS MEMBERS OF THE GOP, A I'VE COME TO EXPECT THEM TO OPPOSE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT COMES THEIR WAY.
MY DRAINAGE, THERE ARE MANY ARE BECAUSE OF MY NEIGHBORS, BUILDING SWIMMING POOLS OR GUEST HOUSES.
I HAVE TO MAINTAIN AT MY EXPENSE, A PRIVATE DRAINAGE DITCH ON MY
[00:15:01]
PROPERTY THAT DRAINS SIX HOUSES THAT SURROUND ME.PLEASE VOTE TO APPROVE AND IGNORE THE WHINERS.
I ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT THESE, THIS ICE BUD, AS IT WILL INCREASE RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNERSHIP ON JEFFERSON HIGHWAY.
IT'S VERY UNLIKELY THAT THE SITE WILL EVER BE PURCHASED FOR A LARGE SINGLE HOME.
I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT.
THE DEVELOPER HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN THE PROJECT AS HE IS A RESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PROJECT IS GOOD FOR PROPERTY VALUES AND IT IS A WANT AND IS ONE LESS COMMERCIAL PROJECT IN AN ALREADY BUSY JEFFERSON HIGHWAY, NO INCREASED TRAFFIC ISSUES, NO NEIGHBORHOOD, AS THERE IS NO DIRECT ACCESS INTO OLD GOODWOOD.
ALL OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION RESIDENT, JOEL DEVELOPMENTS AND OLD GOOD WOULD HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT INCREASE THE VALUE OF OUR PROPERTIES AND ALL SEEM TO HAVE BEEN OPPOSED BY GPOA, INCLUDING TOWN CENTER, FEAR OF A CHANGING LANDSCAPE AND OLD GOODWOOD ISN'T CONSISTENT WITH AN EVER EVOLVING URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD.
I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE PROJECT DEVELOP AND SUPPORT WOLF WASH HOURS EFFORTS TO BRING THE PROJECT TO COMPLETION.
I'M IN SUPPORT OF THEIR REYNOLDS PRECINCT.
COOL REZONING, STEVE ANDERSON, TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT.
I BELIEVE IT WILL BE POSITIVE FOR THE HOMEOWNERS IN THE AREA DUE TO THE POTENTIAL INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUE, AS WELL AS PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY FOR LOCALS BUSINESSES, DOUGLAS MOORE, PLEASE HE'S APPROVED THE REZONING REQUEST.
THIS PROJECT SEEMS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF INFILL DEVELOPMENT, ADDING DENSITY TO BATON ROUGE AND STUFF, MIKE PRICE.
THIS WOULD BE A MARVELOUS ADDITION TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
NED FACILA WOLF, NOT ONLY A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE, BUT HE HAS A PATRON OF THE OLD GOODWOOD AREA.
HE IS A MAN OF INTEGRITY THAT WANTS TO CREATE SOMETHING WONDERFUL IN A PUBLIC PLACE THAT WILL BOOST PROPERTY VALUES, BRING IN MORE FAMILIES TO THE AREA AND BOLSTER THE ALREADY WONDERFUL REPUTATION OF THE YEAR AREA AT NO POINT WHAT ELSE I EVER BEGAN TO TAKE AS FACTUAL ANYONE'S EVIDENCE THAT THIS PROJECT WILL SOMEHOW DO PHYSICAL, EMOTIONAL, OR FINANCIAL HARM TO ANYONE LIVING IN OR NEAR OLD GOODWOOD.
IN FACT, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY EXPECT THAT ONCE COMPLETED, IT WILL BE ANOTHER SHINING REASON WHILE PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE PARISH CONTINUE TO PURCHASE HOMES IN OUR AREA AND OUR, AND THE MOMENT THEY GO, THE MOMENT THEY GO IN THE MARKET, ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT THIS PROJECT IS NOT POSITIVE IN ANY PROGRESS WILL MOVE ELSEWHERE.
AND EVERYONE WINS THAT THAT DOESN'T HAVE A FUNCTIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT OR SHOULD JUST STAY OUT OF THE ARGUMENT.
I WANT TO SAY AGAIN, VOICE MY SUPPORT FOR MR. WOLF'S AS A CITIZEN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN THAT SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS HAVE, HOWEVER, KNOWING WOLF FOR NEARLY A DECADE, AND HAVING SPOKEN TO HIM SPECIFICALLY ABOUT SOME OF MY OWN CONCERNS.
I FEEL THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE AN OVERALL BENEFIT TO OLD GOODWOOD GEORGE BON VILLIAN I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE ICEBERG, GARY LITTLEFIELD.
I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE ICEBERG GUY, OLIVER.
I AM IN SUPPORT OF A QUESTION IN COURT, JEFF, UH, AN ANGERS I'M IN SUPPORT OF A QUESTION IN COURT.
I'M WRITING TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPORT A CREST EQUESTRIAN COURT ON JEFFERSON HIGHWAY.
THE OLD RONALD'S PRESCHOOL SITE IS AN EYESORE AND BADLY IN NEED OF A PLAN.
IT APPEARS THAT OUR NEIGHBOR NEIGHBOR WOLF WASH HOUR HAS A PLAN.
I'VE LIVED IN OLD GOODWOOD FOR 25 YEARS ALL AROUND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE MADE WELCOME NEW CONSTRUCTION INTO OUR ECLECTIC COMMUNITY.
I AM THRILLED WITH THE YOUNG FAMILIES MOVING IN, JOINING OUR CHURCHES, ATTENDING OUR SCHOOLS, PATRONIZING OUR RESTAURANTS AND ENJOYING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I REMEMBER WHEN OLD GOODWOOD SEEMED DEVOID OF YOUNG FAMILIES, IT WAS MUCH LESS WARM, LESS WELCOMING TODAY.
IT IS A VIBRANT GROWING NEIGHBORHOOD, ALBEIT WELL-ESTABLISHED IN THE MID 1990S.
I CRINGED AT QUOTE PROGRESS AT THE THEN LANDLOCKED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED BEHIND MY OLD HOUSE AT ONE FIVE, ONE, ONE TIBIDEAU AT LASALLE.
THE EIGHT HOUSES IN THAT QUOTE, NEW DEVELOPMENT ENHANCE PROPERTY VALUES AND HOST FAMILIES OF ALL AGES AND BACKGROUNDS, PO PROGRESS COMES AT A PRICE.
AND WHEN THE PRICE IS CONVERTING PROPERTY TO BETTER USE FOR OUR COMMUNITY, WE SHOULD ALL BE SUPPORTIVE.
JONATHAN GREER, I'M IN SUPPORT OF A QUESTION IN COURT.
I HAVE REVIEWED THE PLANS AND INFORMATION FOR A QUESTIONNAIRE IN COURT DEVELOPMENT AND FEEL THAT IT WOULD BE A NICE ADDITION TO THE AREA.
I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE A NICE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THEY IN COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL, PLEASE VOTE IN FAVOR.
THAT CONCLUDES THE EMAIL PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR.
AT THIS TIME, WE WILL HEAR FROM THE OPPONENTS AT THIS TIME, WE'LL HEAR FROM THE OPPONENTS.
[00:20:01]
GOOD AFTERNOON.MY NAME IS DENNIS
AND I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF OLD GOODWOOD SINCE THE 1990S, UH, SERVED FOR SEVEN YEARS AS THE GPOA PRESIDENT, YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN ZONING ISSUES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS.
IN FACT, THIS MAY BE SOMEWHERE AROUND THE HUNDREDTH OR SO ZONING MATTER THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS, UH, MET WITH, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS.
WE ATTENDED MEETINGS, WE WALKED THE PROPERTY SITE.
WE VISITED WITH THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE VISITED WITH NEIGHBORS AND THEN OUR BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO OPPOSE THE PROJECT.
THERE ARE MANY REASONS, AND I WILL LET THOSE RESIDENTS WHO ARE NEAREST TO THE PROJECT AND WHO HAVE MOST AT STAKE TO ADDRESS THOSE REASONS.
I DO WANT TO SAY SOMETHING THOUGH, PERSONALLY, ABOUT ZONE.
THERE'S ALWAYS A WINNER AND THERE'S ALWAYS A LOSER AFTER THE DEFERRAL LAST MONTH THAT WAS GRANTED BY THIS COUNCIL.
I WAS HOPING THAT WE COULD HAVE SEEN SOME, SOME MOVEMENT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT, PERHAPS TO REACH OUT TO THE ASSOCIATION, TO TRY TO FIND SOME HAPPY MEDIUM GRANT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.
IN FACT, WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT DEVELOPER ENGAGED THE SERVICES OF A LOBBYIST TO APPROACH THE COUNCIL AND HAVE DISCUSSIONS THERE, NOT WITH THE NEIGHBORS, BUT AROUND THE NEIGHBORS.
AND TO ME, THAT'S JUST NOT HOW ZONING MATTERS SHOULD WORK.
SO WITH THAT SAID, I'M GOING TO LET OUR NEIGHBORS DISCUSS THEIR SPECIFIC ISSUES.
WE'LL TRY TO BE RESPECTFUL OF YOUR TIME TODAY.
AND ON BEHALF OF OUR ASSOCIATION, WHO HAS SUPPORTED MANY ZONING ISSUES AND HAS WORKED WITH MANY DEVELOPERS ON IMPROVING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, INCLUDING TOWN CENTER, THAT WAS MENTIONED.
WE WORK HAND IN HAND WITH TOWN CENTER WORKING, UM, FOR THE BETTERMENT.
SO I'LL LET THOSE NEIGHBORS ADDRESS THE SPECIFICS, BUT I ASKED THAT YOU DECLINE AND VOTE NO ON THIS MATTER.
I LIVE AT 65 11 JEFFERSON HIGHWAY.
I AM OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOR THE RONALD SCHOOL FOR THREE MAJOR REASONS.
I HAVE LIVED IN THE CURVE, TWO DOORS DOWN FROM ROB SCHOOL TOWARD TOWN CENTER.
FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS, TRAFFIC ALONG JEFFERSON HIGHWAY IS EXTREMELY BAD IN OUR AREA.
IF YOU DO NOT LIVE ALONG THAT STRETCH OF THE HIGHWAY, YOU PROBABLY WOULD NOT KNOW THAT IN FACT, DRIVERS FREQUENTLY EXCEED THE SPEED LIMIT.
CONSIDERABLY ACCIDENTS HAPPEN AT ALL HOURS OF THE DAY AND NIGHT, A FEW RESULTING IN DEPTH OF THE DRIVER.
ADDING WHAT MOST LIKELY COULD BE MULTIPLE CARS EXITING A SMALL WALL HOUSING AREA, JUST NORTH OF THE CURVE AT ANY GIVEN TIME 365 DAYS A YEAR POTENTIALLY COULD RESULT IN MANY MORE ACCIDENTS.
NUMBER TWO, DRAINAGE, EXISTING DRAINAGE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED.
NUMBER THREE, DENSITY, HOUSING 13, LOTS FOR SHORT STREETS, THREE OF WHICH WOULD BE ONE WAY, NO OWN PARKING AND ONLY FOUR DEDICATED PARKING SPACES FOR ALL VISITORS AT ANY GIVEN TIME IS A RECIPE FOR DISASTER.
IN FACT, PERSONS ATTENDING FUNCTIONS IN THE PAST AT THAT LOCATION, ALL ALONG THE HIGHWAY HAVE PARKED ON THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF OUR HOME AND OTHERS, ROUTE PEAKS WILL BE LEGAL UP TO 40 FEET, 40 FEET PRIVACY INFRINGEMENT FOR CURRENT HOUSES ON THREE SIDES OF THE PROPERTY LIKELY WOULD OCCUR IMPORTANTLY, ONCE A LOT IS SO THE DEVELOPERS SEEM TO HAVE NO AUTHORITY OVER WHAT KINDS OF HOUSES WOULD BE BUILT ON THESE VERY SMALL LOTS.
AND DEPENDING ON, ON STYLE MAY NOT BE IN HARMONY WITH SURROUNDING HOMES.
IT ISN'T BEST INSINCERE TO SAY THAT CLAIRE CUTTING 11, BEAUTIFUL OLD TRIGS AND SQUEEZING 13 SMALL BUILDINGS ONTO A TWO ACRE LOT WILL INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE 15 OR MORE LARGE TRADITIONAL HOMES ON THE HIGHWAY.
THERE IS NOTHING LIKE THIS PROPOSED DENSITY IN OLD GOODWOOD, NOTHING CONTRARY TO STANDARD LANGUAGE USED BY PLANNING AND ZONING.
THIS PLAN IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES.
ALSO THE APPLICANT'S SIGNING OF THE PROPERTY VALUES IN THE ONE
[00:25:01]
STREET DEVELOPMENT AT TOWNSHIP AT OLD GOODWOOD, MAYBE FACTUAL, BUT IN NO WAY, RELATE TO THOSE OF THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OR GOODWILL IS EXPERIENCING A MAJOR REVITALIZATION.MANY YOUNG FAMILIES ARE MOVING IN AND REMODELING.
OLDER HOMES ARE REPLACING EXISTING ONES, ALLOW THEM SUCH A PRECEDENT AS PROPOSED FOR THIS PROPERTY COULD HAVE SERIOUS NEGATIVE RAMIFICATIONS FOR OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND ULTIMATELY THE ENTIRETY OF DISTRICT ONE.
IF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WERE SUCH A GOOD IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY FOR THE DEVELOPER TO HIRE PROFESSIONAL LOBBYISTS TO CONVINCE YOU TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT.
I CURRENTLY RESIDE AT SIX SIX FIVE EIGHT LASALLE AVENUE WITH MY WIFE, ASHLEY.
WE ARE IN THE ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
AND AS I APPRECIATE MR. THOMPSON STATEMENT, I HAVE TO FURTHER EMPHASIZE THAT JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE DOES NOT REQUIRE OR WANT A LOWER DENSITY DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT AN ICE FOOT IS.
AS A MATTER OF FACT,
IN THIS CASE, THE DEVELOPER ZONING CHANGE REQUESTS AS A PROPORTION OF THAT INTENT BASED ON A NEED FOR A ZONING CHANGE AS DEFINED IN THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE ICEBERG OR ANY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING MUST MEET 13 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.
IN THIS CASE, 12 ARE ONLY APPLICABLE AFTER A LONG AND EXTENSIVE REVIEW.
IN MY OPINION, GIVING CONSIDERATION TO BOTH PARTIES, I'VE FOUND THAT THE DEVELOPER REALLY TRULY ONLY MEETS TWO OF THESE.
ANYONE IS ANYONE THAT HAS SPENT TIME IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WILL CLEARLY SEE THE PLAN AS PROPOSED AS A MAJOR DEPARTURE FROM THE EXISTING ZONING RULES APPLICABLE TO THE REMAINDER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR AN ICE BUDS TO BE CONSIDERED.
IN THIS MATTER, IT WOULD BE A REASONABLE UNDERSTANDING FOR THE DEVELOPER TO DEMONSTRATE A NEED FOR THE ZONING REQUEST OTHER THAN MONETARY REASONS.
MY HOME SHARES A BOUNDARY WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT AND I'VE SHOWN NO I'VE SEEN NO EVIDENCE THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO ALIGN THE DEVELOPMENT WITH THE CURRENT ZONING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AS WE'VE PROPOSED AN OLD GOODWOOD IN PARTICULARLY THIS PROPERTY AND I'S PUT DEVELOPMENT IS NOT NEEDED TO MAKE THIS PROPERTY MORE FINANCIALLY VIABLE.
SO THAT ARGUMENT IS IRRELEVANT.
IT'S A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ITSELF IS NOT DESIGNED TO TAKE THE PROPERTY AND MAKE IT MORE VIABLE IN THIS SECTION OF JEFFERSON HIGHWAY, AS WELL AS MANY WILL UNDERSTAND THE MULTITUDE OF WORTHY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING THE PROPERTY FOR THE SCHOOL TO REPLACE WRONGS DEVELOPERS LIKE THIS.
WHILE I DO UNDERSTAND THEY MAY HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS, WE SHOULD LISTEN TO THE CONSTITUENTS IN THE AREA MOST DIRECTLY AFFECTED.
IF THIS LAST VOTE IS APPROVED IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, WHICH THRIVES ECONOMICALLY AND BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT ZONING RESTRICTIONS AS WE RISK THAT OTHERS ZONES IN OUR OTHER DISTRICTS IN OUR CITY WILL MISS OUT ON OPPORTUNITIES THAT AN ICEBERG IS ACTUALLY INTENDED FOR THE DEVELOPER PLANE PLAN STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT WILL BRING MORE PROSPERITY IN AIDING THE INCREASE IN HOME VALUE SURROUNDING THE AREAS.
I BELIEVE THEY'RE NOT PRESENTING THE WHOLE PICTURE.
THE NUMBER OF HOME SELLS GROWING IN THE ECONOMY AROUND THE AREA IS ACTUALLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT GOODWOOD POA AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS HAVE MAINTAINED THE CURRENT ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
I LIVE AT 1450 SOUTH CARROLLTON.
I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 33 YEARS.
I'M OPPOSED TO MODIFYING THE ZONES, THE ZONING FOR RANCH PROPERTY, THE BEDROOMS UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE STATES THAT THE DESIGN OF BOTH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHOULD MINIMIZE ADVERSE EFFECTS, INCLUDING VISUAL IMPACTS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THE PROPOSE.
YOU SHOULD NOT ALLOW LAND USAGE THAT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, EIGHT PROPERTIES BORDER.
THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, THERE ARE LARGE TREES ON EVERY BORDERING PROPERTY.
THE RONALD'S PROPERTY IS FRONTED BY FOUR LARGE CREPE MYRTLES.
AND AS TIM, A LOT OF BOOKS, IF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS APPROVED, EVERY TREE ON THAT LOT WILL BE REMOVED.
THE ZONING MODIFICATION IS THREE FOOT SETBACKS IN A 6.47 UNITS PER ACRE DENSITY THAT EXCEEDS A ONE RESIDENTIAL MAXIMUM DENSITY BY 58%.
THE SMALL SETBACKS REQUESTED DO NOT LEAVE ROOM FOR LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS BETWEEN A MAJORITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEIGHBORING
[00:30:01]
PROPERTIES.THE VISUAL IMPACT OF A 40 FOOT WALL OF HOUSES WILL BE SEVERE AND WILL DRASTICALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THESE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
FOR MANY OF US PURCHASING A HOME IS A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT.
WE MAKE THE DECISION BASED ON THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEING PROTECT PROTECTED BY ZONING REGULATIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DEVELOPER, EVERY PROPERTY OWNER BOARDING, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS OPPOSED TO THIS MODIFICATION.
THE DEVELOPER HAS A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE AND SOME DEGREE OF CONTROL OVER THE VISUAL AND PRIVACY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
THE BORDERING NEIGHBORS ARE NOT AFFORDED THESE COURTESIES.
THE GOODWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS BOARD OF DIRECTORS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO A PRO TO OPPOSE IT IN OUR METRO COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE.
LAURIE ADAMS IS ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
WE'VE HEARD COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT IT, WHO SAY THAT IT WILL INCREASE THEIR PROPERTY VALUES.
THIS MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE, BUT NOT ONE OF THEM BORDER THIS PROPERTY APPROVAL THAT THIS REQUEST WILL DRAMATICALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER AND IMPACT THE PRIVACY OF THE BOARDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THIS DECISION REST IN THE HANDS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO DO NOT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S EASY TO BE AMBIVALENT ABOUT THIS CHANGE.
IF YOU ARE NOT DIRECTLY IMPACTED AND DO NOT HAVE TO LIVE WITH THIS EVERY DAY, I ASK THAT YOU PLEASE SHOW CONSIDERATION FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
IT'S NOT UNREASONABLE FOR US TO WANT TRADITIONAL SETBACKS, DENSITY AND PRIVACY AS PRESCRIBED IN A ONE ZONING.
YOU CAN'T PUT A PRICE ON THAT.
THE GOODWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY AGAINST ME.
I WOULD ASK THE COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM OTHER DISTRICT RE REQUEST, RESPECT THE WISHES OF THE BORING PROPERTY OWNERS.
MY NAME IS GAIL GAIN YANG AND I LIVE AT 71 37 ANNABEL AVENUE WHERE I MOVED 20 YEARS AGO UPON RETIRING FROM THE BAIL SYSTEM.
UM, ONE OF THE, THEY WILL SPEAK MUCH MORE TECHNICALLY THAN I CAN.
SO LET ME JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE, I'M GOING TO CALL IT HEART CHAT, CHAT ZONING.
I GREW UP IN BATON ROUGE BETWEEN IN THAT AREA OF THE WELLS HOUSE.
THOSE WERE HANDSOME BOYS TODAY AND THE STRUGGLE'S HOME, WHICH IS WHERE THE MAN HOMES, NATALIE.
THERE WERE TWO OR THREE HOUSES THERE.
IF TODAY'S, UH, I GUESS SPECIFICATIONS WEREN'T APPLIED, IT WOULD BE ONE A AND TWO OR THREE HOUSES WOULD BE, THEY'RE NOT 13, TWO AND A HALF STORY HOMES.
AND LAST YOU THINK I'M A TO MANSIONS ON MY STREET.
MY ONE BLOCK OF ANABEL, WE HAVE A MIX OF OLD AND NEW AND 12 CHILDREN WHO HAVE COME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO PLAY UP AND DOWN THE STREET.
AND I WANT TO SPEAK TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE I'M BETWEEN TIBIDEAU AVENUE AND KEY AVENUE.
THERE'S NO LEFT TURN AT TIBIDEAU ONTO JEFFERSON.
I SAT THERE ONE DAY AND 98% OF THE CARS TURNED LEFT.
HOW ENFORCEABLE WOULD THAT BE AT THE GAINING ENTRANCE AT ANOTHER CURVE ON JEFFERSON HIGHWAY.
AND I'M NOT THE MIDDLE OF THAT.
THEY'LL NEVER SPEAK ABOUT THE DRAINAGE COMING ACROSS TO HIS PROPERTY.
I'M SURE IT WILL BE A BENEFIT.
I DO FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT MR. THOMPSON HAD GREAT INTENTIONS, BUT HE'S FROM ALEXANDRIA.
UH, I DO SEE THAT THE OPPOSITION COMES FROM THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS.
SEVEN OUT OF THE EIGHT ARE OPPOSED TO IT.
THE GPO WHITE BOARD IS OPPOSED TO IT.
AND COUNCILWOMAN ADAMS IS OPPOSED TO IT AND I'M OPPOSED TO IT AT DOESN'T CARRY A LOT OF WEIGHT, BUT I JUST THOUGHT I'D ADD MY VOICE.
I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.
PLEASE DO OPPOSE THIS AND LET'S GET SOMETHING NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WILL INCREASE THE COMMUNITY OF BATHROOM AND GPOA.
MY FAMILY OWNS PROPERTY AT 1575.
CAMERON DRIVE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT DUE TO MISREPRESENTATION BY THE PROJECT ON DRAINAGE FLOW PATTERNS, MEMO DATED JANUARY 28, 2021 CONSIDER ENGINEERING STATES.
THE ENTIRE SITE DRAINS IN TWO EXISTING INLETS ON JEFFERSON HIGHWAY, AND IT'S AT A ROUTED WESTERN OUTFALLS TO ADVANTAGE LATERAL OFF OF WOLF CREEK.
THIS IS NOT A TRUE REPRESENTATION.
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY EAST OF CENTER DEVELOPMENT FLOWS INTO A PRIVATELY-OWNED LANE LAND DRAINAGE NETWORK, VEEVA UNDERGROUND PIPING
[00:35:01]
MEMO DATED FEBRUARY 1ST, 2021 TO CITY ENGINEERING STAKES AT THE EXISTING REAR DITCH.IT'S NOT UTILIZED ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT IN THE EXISTING OR PROPOSED CONDITIONS.
IT GETS SERVICES ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND IS SHOWN FOR CLARITY OFFICE OF OFFSITE DRAINAGE PATTERNS.
THIS WAS NOT ALSO A TRUE REPRESENTATION, EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY SOUTH OF CENTER DEVELOPMENT FLOW INTO A PRIVATELY OWNED LAND DRAINAGE NETWORK THROUGH PRE-CUT SWELLS, TRENCH TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT WHO DOES REPRESENT THIS MISREPRESENTATION THROUGH THOSE CITY ENGINEERING.
I WONDER WHAT ELSE COULD BE MISREPRESENTED.
MY NAME IS DAWN BORDERLINE I'M AT SIX SIX FIVE SIX LASALLE AVENUE.
I BELIEVE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS SPOT ZONING AND IT'S NOT CONSISTENT TO THE BEAUTIFUL HISTORIC AREA THAT MAKES ALL GOODWOOD, SUCH A PROCESS.
SPECIAL PLACE THAT I HAVE CALLED MY HOME FOR 30 YEARS.
THE PARCEL OF LAND NEEDS TO CONTINUE TO BE A ONE ZONING, WHICH IS THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
EVERYONE'S ZONING CONSISTS OF 4.1 HOUSES PER ACRE.
THIS PROPOSAL IN PLACE THAT NUMBER BY 6.4 HOUSES PER ACRE, WHICH FAR EXCEEDS ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA, THE DRAMATIC BUILDING DENSITY, SETBACKS AND HEIGHT VARIANCES ARE NOWHERE NEAR A ONE ZONING.
THIS PARTICULAR DESIGN IS INCONSIDERATE AND COMPLETELY IN OPPOSITION TO THE CHARACTER AND NATURE OF THE EXISTING ADJACENT PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT JUST DOES NOT FIT ON THIS PARCEL OF LAND.
I HAVE HAD A FEW DISCUSSIONS WITH WOLF WATCHTOWER ABOUT HOW WE COULD MAKE THIS WORK AND WAS TOLD BY HIM.
HE CAN MAP NOT MAKE A BIG ENOUGH PROFIT BY LEAVING THE PROPERTY.
A ONE WHICH HAS BEEN ANOTHER CONCERN I HAVE SPOKEN WITH IN THE PAST ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
HIS RESPONSE WAS JEFFERSON HIGHWAY COULD NOT TAKE ON ANY MORE WATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE WAS THE PROBLEM WITHIN BATON ROUGE.
I MET WITH THE CITY PARISH OFFICIALS ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, AND I HAVE WALKED THE DITCH IN QUESTIONED WITH THEM.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS HAS ATTEMPTED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS TO IMPROVE THE DRAINAGE FROM CAMERON TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY THROUGH THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY OF WHICH WOLF WASH SHOWER USES AS A DRIVEWAY FOR HIS PERSONAL HOME.
INSTEAD HE OBJECTED AND PROTESTED ENOUGH FOR THEM TO SEE THEIR ATTEMPT.
I FIND IT HIGHLY IRREGULAR, A DRAINAGE IMPACT STUDY WAS NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.
SINCE THIS SEEMS TO BE A MAJOR CONCERN FOR MOST OF THE RESIDENTS.
I ALSO FIND IT DIFFICULT FROM MY DISCUSSION WITH WOLF AND HIS LACK OF PROFIT COMMENT BY LEADING THIS A1C BY, BY LEAVING THIS DEVELOPMENT
IT WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY BY SUGGESTION OF THIS COUNCIL, WHICH IS 30 DAY TO FURROWS.
WHEN HIS 30 DAY DEFERRAL WAS GRANTED TO MAKE A JUDGMENT AS TO HIS PLANS.
AND NONE WERE TO MY KNOWLEDGE, INSTEAD OF YOU HIRED A LOBBYIST TO PUSH THIS AGENDA FORWARD, IF THIS WAS SUCH A GOOD FIT, ONE WOULD HAVE TO ASK WHY WAS THIS NECESSARY? I TRUST THE COUNCIL WILL VOTE ALONG WITH THE DISTRICT COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE AND OUR PROPERTY ASSOCIATION WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, I BELIEVE WOULD BE UNPRECEDENTED FOR THE REST OF THE COUNCIL TO NOT FOLLOW THE LEAD OF OUR METRO COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE, LAURIE ADAMS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I LIVE AT 65 11 JEFFERSON HIGHWAY FOR 21 YEARS, HAVE ALMOST ONLY ONE HOUSE ON ONE AND A QUARTER ACRES, TWO LOTS SOUTH OF A RONALD SPOON.
I'M CERTAINLY NOT DISPLEASED WITH THE CURRENT VALUE OF MY PROPERTY.
THREE LOTS NORTH OF THE SCHOOL IS A HOME BEING REMODELED IN WHICH THE OWNERS UPON COMPLETION WILL HAVE INVESTED UPWARDS OF $3 MILLION DESTRUCTION OF THE OLD TREES AND CHOPPING UP THE ROOM'S PROPERTY.
THE 13 TINY HOME SITES, CERTAINLY ISN'T GOING TO IMPROVE THE VALUE OF MY PROPERTY AND
[00:40:01]
THAT THERE'S GOT TO THINK AND IMAGINE THEM BEING IN AN UPSTAIRS BEDROOM AND ONE OF THE LITTLE HOUSES LOOKING OUT YOUR WINDOW AND BEHOLD, THEY'RE YOUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS IN THEIR BEDROOM, SIX FEET AWAY.WE WERE ALARMED AT THE RESPONSES RATE AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING FROM PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIVE IN OUR SUBDIVISION AND THEIR CLAIMS OF INCREASING OUR PROPERTY VALUES WERE TOTALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED.
THEY OFFERED NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS. AND QUITE FRANKLY, THE ONLY REASONABLE CONCLUSION WOULD BE THAT THE OPINIONS OFFERED BY THESE DISINTERESTED AND UNAFFECTED PARTIES WERE SOLICITED BY THE SOLITARY PERSON WHO WOULD BENEFIT THEM.
NAMELY THE DEVELOPERS OF THE STEAM LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE.
WE WOULD BE CHECKING THE RESPONSES, READ IT.
TODAY'S MEETING FOR EVIDENCE OF MORE OF THE SITE AT THE LAST MEETING, THE DEVELOPER REQUESTED A 30 DAY DEFERRAL DURING WHICH TIME HE MADE NO ATTEMPT TO COMMUNICATE WITH US.
AND STAN WENT BEHIND OUR BACKS AND UNDERTOOK THE SHAMEFUL ACTION OF HIRING A HIGH-POWERED LOBBYIST TO PERSUADE THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS TO TOTALLY IGNORE AND DISREGARD THE POSITION OF OUR ELECTED COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE, OUR 800 MEMBER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND ALL OF THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS.
WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPECT EACH OF YOU TO HONOR THE REQUEST OF OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE AS PER TRADITION, JUST AS YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPECT OUR COUNCIL MEMBER, DONNA, YOUR REQUEST REGARDING ISSUES THAT BEST SERVE THOSE WHOM YOU REPRESENT THE FINAL INSULT IS THAT THE DEVELOPER INTENDS TO SELL THESE LOTS AND NOT BUILD ON THEM, TAKE THE PROFIT.
HE MAKES AN EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH AND SPEND EIGHT IN HIS HOME PARISH OVER A HUNDRED MILES AWAY, LEAVING US WITH THE CARNAGE HE HAS CREATED.
SO PLEASE DO THE MORROW AND HONORABLE THING AND SAY NO TO THIS UNCONSCIONABLE REQUEST.
HI, MY NAME IS REBECCA NELSON AND I LIVE AT SIX FOUR EIGHT TWO LASALLE AVENUE, UM, WHICH IS ON THE CORNER OF CAROLTON AND LASALLE.
AND I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS REAL QUICKLY.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT AND I'M NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE IN ANY CAPACITY.
AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE DRAINAGE AND IT'S GOING TO IMPACT TRAFFIC.
HOWEVER, THE DENSITY ISSUE IS SEVERE.
WE HAVE BEEN IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ONLY ABOUT THREE YEARS, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE ATTRACTED TO ABOUT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE SPACING OF THE LARGE LOT SIZE AND THE SPACING OF THE HOUSES AND THE TREES.
UM, AND THIS OBVIOUSLY NEGATES ALL OF THAT.
THE 40 FOOT PIECE IS QUITE SUBSTANTIAL COUPLED WITH HOUSES THAT ARE THREE FEET APART, UM, WHILE THE ETUDE DEVELOPMENT AND THE OTHER ONES OFF IN, IN SURROUNDING AREAS ARE VERY NICE.
THEY'RE ALSO SUBSTANTIALLY SMALLER THAN THIS, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, ADDITIONALLY, THE FINANCIAL PIECE, I GET IT.
MY HUSBAND DOES SOME DEVELOPMENT.
EVERYBODY'S GOT TO MAKE A LIVING, BUT I ALSO, AND I UNDERSTAND THE ONE-OFFS POSITION NEEDING THE INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY, BUT I ALSO HAVE IT ON GOOD AUTHORITY THAT THERE ARE TWO OTHER BACKUP OFFERS ON THE PROPERTY.
SO THIS ISN'T THE ONLY OPTION.
SO I, I HATE TO SEE US MAKE A DECISION BASED ON A BIRD IN THE HAND WHEN THERE ARE TWO OTHERS RIGHT BEHIND US, UM, THAT WOULD BE MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND IT JUST SEEMS THAT IT ISN'T QUITE THE SAME.
MY PARENTS WERE BUILDING ACTUALLY ON A PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY MOVED TO BATON ROUGE TO BE NEAR US.
UM, THINKING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS AS IT IS CURRENTLY AND THINKING THAT THEY WOULD HAVE POTENTIALLY ONE HOUSE BEHIND THEM, BUT MAYBE NOT A WHOLE LOT MORE.
AND THEY'RE LOOKING AT HAVING SEVERAL 40 FOOT WINDOWS OVERLOOKING THEIR BACKYARD.
SO I'D LIKE TO, UM, REQUEST THAT Y'ALL DENY THE PROPOSAL FOR THE ZONING CHANGE.
I LIVE IN 66, 66 LASALLE WITH MY HUSBAND AND MY THREE CHILDREN UNDER BOUGHT.
UM, WE JUST BOUGHT THIS HOUSE IN THE SUMMER PURPOSELY TO HAVE A LARGE BACKYARD.
WE LOVED THE TREES THAT WE COULD SEE WERE JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF MR. BOB'S YARD.
SO WE ARE ADJACENT AND NEAR NEIGHBORS, BUT WE WERE NEVER CONSULTED ABOUT THIS AT ALL.
NOT BROUGHT INTO ANY MEETINGS OR GIVEN ACTUALLY ANY NOTIFICATION I FOUND OUT ON FACEBOOK.
UM, SO FIRST OF ALL, INSULTING, UH, SECOND OF ALL, VERY MUCH IN OPPOSITION OF IT.
IT IS GOING TO BE SO DENSE AND IT WILL BE THE ONLY THING THAT I STARE AT WHICH I REALIZE
[00:45:01]
DOESN'T MATTER A WHOLE LOT TO PROBABLY THE COUNCIL OR ANYBODY THAT DOESN'T STARE AT IT, BUT IT MATTERS A LOT TO ME.AND THIS IS GOING TO BE MY FOREVER HOME AND I'M GOING TO BE THERE FOR A LONG TIME.
WE JUST MADE A BIG INVESTMENT.
WE MOVED FROM CAPITOL HEIGHTS.
I LOVE EVERYTHING ABOUT MITSUI.
I UNDERSTAND LOTS OF DEVELOPMENT, A LITTLE LOCKS.
I DON'T WANT IT CHANGING IN MY BACKYARD.
I KNOW I'M GOING TO LIVE HERE FOR, WELL, HOPEFULLY LIKE 60 MORE YEARS IN WHICH HAS LOTS OF THINGS ARE GOING TO CHANGE.
HOW IS THERE GOING TO GO DOWN? HOW'S IT ARE GOING TO GO UP.
I MIGHT HATE THE HOUSE THAT GOES UP WHEREVER IT IS.
IF IT'S DONE WITH THE REGULATIONS, THAT'S YOUR BUSINESS.
YOU DO IT WHEN YOU HAVE TO CHANGE THE RULES.
AND I JUST, I JUST WANT TO GIVE THAT SORT OF PERSONAL.
THIS IS ACTUALLY AFFECTING MY LIFE, MY CHILDREN.
UM, IF YOU START DRAINING MY YARD, WHERE ARE MY CHILDREN GOING TO PLAY? SO I'M VERY MUCH IN OPPOSITION.
WE HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER SPEAKERS.
ASHLEY MANKY SIX, SIX BY FIVE, EIGHT LASALLE.
UM, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THERE IS A STORM WATER, UM, COVER ONE JEFFERSON HIGHWAY, RIGHT AT OUGHTA BEEN THAT OVERFLOWS ALL THE TIME.
YOU KNOW, THE DRAINAGE THING THAT WILL ATTACH, UM, FROM DDG, UM, YOU KNOW, SAID THAT THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO DRAIN ALL THE WAY TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY, UM, WHICH CURRENTLY LIKE THE BACK HALF DRAINS TO OUR DITCH AND THE FRONT HALF GOES TO JEFFERSON.
NOW THEY'RE SAYING ALL OF IT IS GOING TO GO TO JEFFERSON AND THAT DRAIN ALREADY FLIPS.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES IT'S HAPPENED.
WE PUT A CALL INTO THE PARISH ATTORNEY.
JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.
ALSO WANTED TO SAY, PEOPLE LIKE, LOOK GOOD WOOD FOR THE TREES AND THE BIRDS.
AND WHEN YOU, YOU KNOW, SCRAPE ALL OF THE TREES OFF OF A PIECE OF LAND, UM, THE BIRDS KNOW WHERE TO GO.
SO JUST WANTED TO INCLUDE THAT AS WELL.
I'M STILL WINTER 6,300 JEFFERSON HIGHWAY CEDAR LODGE.
I'M ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE RENTAL SCHOOL.
I WANT TO COMMEND OUR COUNCIL FOR DOING SMART GROWTH.
YOU'VE DONE A WONDERFUL JOB SO FAR.
I DO NOT CONSIDER SMART GROWTH, SOMETHING THAT IS NOT BASED IN COMPROMISE AND WIN-WIN SITUATION.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT, DO IT.
SO IT'S A WIN-WIN FOR EVERYONE.
THIS IS NOT UNDER ANY SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND IT IS NOT FOR MANY OF THE REASONS YOU'VE HEARD HERE TONIGHT.
THE DRAINAGE IS A SERIOUS ISSUE.
WE HAVE DEVELOPED BOTH CAUTIOUS STATES WANTING TO BOCCACCIO LAKE TOWN CENTER.
AND IN EVERY ONE OF THOSE, THERE HAVE BEEN DRAINAGE ISSUES, ESPECIALLY IN TOWN CENTER.
AND ESPECIALLY AS MS. MACKEY JUST POINTED OUT AND JEFFERSON HIGHWAY THAT COVER DOES COME OFF AND HE DOES IT REGULARLY, EVERY LARGE RAIN EVENT.
THERE IS MAYBE A SLIGHT CAPACITY IN JEFFERSON HIGHWAY, BUT IT'S DOWNSTREAM WHERE THE PROBLEM OCCURS AND IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO OCCUR.
JEFFERSON IS DANGEROUS AS MISS MANHEIM POINTED OUT.
WHEN YOU LIVE ON JEFFERSON, YOU HEAR THE NOISE ALL NIGHT.
MANY HAVE DIED IN THE CURVE ON JEFFERSON RONALD'S WOULD PARK ON THE CURVE WHERE YOU HAVE ONLY FOUR, FOUR PARKING PLACES IN 13 HOMES.
TELL ME NO, ONE'S GONNA HAVE PARTIES.
NO ONE'S GONNA HAVE A FOOTBALL PARTY, NOTHING ELSE.
AND WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO PARK? THEY'RE GOING TO PARK ON THE SIDEWALK ON JEFFERSON HIGHWAY IN A BLIND CURVE.
NOT ONLY WILL THEY PARK THERE, THEY'LL PARKED IN MY DRIVEWAY.
WE DO THAT FOR PEOPLE ALL THE TIME, 6,300, WE DON'T MIND, BUT WHEN THEY PARK AND BLOCK ALL OF OUR TRAILERS AND TRUCKS COMING IN AND OUT, IT BECOMES A PROBLEM.
I THINK SMART GROWTH DICTATES COMPROMISE IN A WIN-WIN SITUATION.
AND THIS IS NOT A WINNING SITUATION BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND I'VE KNOWN WOLF FOR MANY YEARS OR GOODWOOD.
LET'S MAKE IT A WIN-WIN SITUATION DEFERRED DENIED, BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE BETTER COMMUNICATION.
PLEASE KEEP UP THE SMART GROWTH,
[00:50:05]
NO OTHER OPPONENTS.WE WILL NOW HAVE THE, UH, EMAIL STATEMENTS AND OPPOSITION READ FOR THE RECORD.
FIRST COMMENT AND OPPOSITION MARIE WILLIAMS, THE PLAN CALLS FOR TOO MANY DWELLINGS ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH WILL CAUSE MORE DRAINAGE AND TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN AN AREA THAT IS RELATIVELY QUIET AND FEELS LIKE A SETTING.
DONALD ELLIOTT, THE RESIDENCE OF GOODWOOD OR AN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED ICE BUD.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT FOLLOW GOODWOOD'S ZONING BYLAWS BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL IS AN ATTEMPT TO WAGE 13 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES INTO 2.01 ACRES ACCEPTING THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD ALSO SET PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH DENSITY HOUSING IN OLD GOODWOOD.
ADDITIONALLY, GOODWOOD HAS SEEN WORSE THAN HE DRAINAGE IN RECENT YEARS BECAUSE OF NEW DEVELOPMENT.
MOREOVER, I UNDERSTAND THAT IN LIEU OF PERFORMING A JOURNEY STUDY FOR THE PROJECT, THE DEVELOPER HAS HIRED A LOBBYIST TO GREASE THE PALMS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS TO GET THIS MEASURE THROUGH IT'S TIME, WE STAND UP TO BIG MONEY AND LOUISIANA POLITICS AND SEND THIS MEASURE PACKING, ASK THAT YOU DENY THE ASPECT FOR MOVING GLEN HOLSTEIN.
UM, IT WAS THE REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS TOO LARGE.
MAY CALL DRAINAGE ISSUES, INCREASED TRAFFIC AND WILL SET A PRECEDENT OF OVERCROWDED DEVELOPMENTS IN A PEACEFUL NEIGHBORHOOD.
CHARLES SCHIMMEL, THE ISSUE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND TRAFFIC COMING OFF OF JEFFERSON, UH, DO NOT CONCERN ME.
HOWEVER, THE DRAINAGE FOR THIS PROJECT IS A HUGE CONCERN.
ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THE PARISH SHOULD HAVE AN INDEPENDENT STUDY PAID FOR BY THE DEVELOPER AND CONFIRMED THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE DESIGNED FOR SELF-CONTAINED DRAINAGE.
I PERSONALLY HAVE ONGOING IMPACT FROM AN, FROM A NEIGHBOR WITH NO REGARD FOR ANYBODY BUT HIMSELF.
A PROJECT LIKE A QUESTION IN COURT COULD IMPACT THE DRAINAGE OF THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD, IF NOT PROPERLY PLANNING AND JOHN'S SOUL AS A RESONANCE AND OF ALL GOODWOOD.
I URGE OUR LEADERSHIP TO VOTE NO AGAINST THE PLANT, THE PLANT ICE BUB PROPOSED AT REYNOLDS, WE CHERISH THE LARGE LOTS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND EXTENSIVE SUB SUBDIVIDING OF LOTS CAUSES UNNECESSARY JOURNEY ISSUES, TRAFFIC ISSUES, AND AS AN OVERALL OVERALL DEGRADATION TO THE PROPERTIES IN THIS ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD, AS A BUILDER BUILDER AND CONTRACTOR MYSELF, EVEN I'M AGAINST THIS FORM OF SUBDIVIDING, THESE LOTS, PLEASE VOTE.
IT WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO OUR AREA OR MOVING BEAUTIFUL ESTABLISHED TREES, INCLUDING THREE LIVE OAKS, INCREASED TRAFFIC AND OPENED THE DOOR TO MORE AND MORE DEVELOPMENT.
PLEASE VOTE NO TO THIS PROPOSAL, SCOTT LAKHANI, I'M A, OH, THIS, THIS REZONING EFFORT DUE TO THE HIGH RISK OF ADVERSE DRAINING RELATED IMPACTS.
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY HAS LONGSTANDING CHRONIC DEBT JOURNEY.
CHALLENGES IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OR DRAINAGE IMPACT WAS NOT PERFORMED PRIOR TO THIS MEETING.
I'VE A NOTE, THE REZONING PROPOSAL, CHARLES AND DANA SCHIMMEL.
WELL, I'M NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO A MO MULTIPLE HOUSES BEING BUILT ON THIS PROP PROPERTY.
IT MUST HAVE AN ADEQUATE AND DETAILED DRAINAGE PLAN TO SELF-CONTAIN THE WATER CREATED ON THE PROPERTY AND DRAIN IT WITHOUT IMPACTING NEIGHBOR NEIGHBORING HOUSES.
AND THAT PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED BY AN INDEPENDENT PARTY.
WE HAVE FIRST, WE HAVE FIRSTHAND DEALT WITH A FLOODING ISSUE, OKAY, CREATED BY INADEQUATE DRAINAGE FOR A NEW BUILD ON THE PROPERTY NEXT, OURS, WHICH CREATED MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF WATER FLOWING ONTO OUR PROPERTY AND PERMANENTLY ALTERING OUR EXISTING LANDSCAPE OF OUR YARD AND EXISTING MARY ATCOCK JEFFERSON.
WE CANNOT HANDLE ANY MORE TRAFFIC REMOVAL OF ESTABLISHED LIVE OAKS IS A TRAGEDY DRAINAGE ISSUES.
TOO MANY HOUSES ARE PROPOSED FOR TOO SMALL OF A LIE.
LAURA, THIS AREA THERE'S NOT NEEDED A NEW SUBDIVISION, A QUESTION IN COURT OR OTHER THIS WILL LOWER PROPERTY VALUE, INCREASED TRAFFIC AND REMOVE WELL-ESTABLISHED TREES THAT WILL INCREASE THE RISK FLOODING JEAN RYAN, AS A WRITER, OLD GOODWOOD I'M OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST AS IT IS WRITTEN FOR US, BUD FOUR, FOUR, TWO, ONE, THE CHANGES PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER DO NOT MEET THE SCOPE AND CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING HOUSES.
AND DON'T MEET A ONE ZONING CRITERIA.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS ONE OF THE OLDEST IN BATON ROUGE AND A VERY DESIRABLE AREA.
WE HAVE MILLION DOLLAR HOMES AS WELL AS HOMES VALUED AT MUCH LESS.
AND YET THE ONE THING THEY HAVE IN COMMON IS THE FACT THAT AWAN STATUS HAS BEEN HONORED AND MAINTAINED IN OLD GOODWOOD.
THERE ARE FAMILIES WHO ARE SECOND AND THIRD GENERATION RESIDENTS AND COUNTLESS OTHERS WHO HAVE LIVED IN THE AREA FOR MANY DECADES.
I FEEL THAT IF A STATUS FOR LOTS IS COMPROMISED, THAT WILL SET A PRECEDENT FOR THE FUTURE.
AND WHILE I'M SURE THE CURRENT DEVELOPER WOULD SEE A FINANCIAL WINDFALL, THIS WILL BE AT THE DETRIMENT TO THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
HOME VALUE DEVELOPER HAS NOT BEEN WILLING TO DISCUSS OR COMPROMISE HIS POSITION.
SO I'M LEFT TO THINK THAT HE IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH HIS INTEREST AND NOT THE GREATER GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY.
I RESIDED IN MY HOME IN OLD GOODWOOD'S SINCE 1982, UNTIL PRESENT DURING THAT TIME, I'VE WATCHED MANY CHANGES TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
[00:55:01]
SOME OF THEM FOR THE BETTER, BETTER, AND SOME HAVE NOT.I DO NOT THINK THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE, I DON'T THINK THIS USE OF THE PROPERTY IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BESIDES ESTABLISHING A PRECEDENT FOR DENSELY POPULATED LAND.
IT IS NOT INCAPABLE WITH OLD GOODWOOD.
ADD TO THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PROBLEMS IN THE AREA ALREADY.
THEREFORE, FOR THE RECORD, I OPPOSE THIS ITEM.
THIS AREA IS OWNED EIGHT ONE AND SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED TO A COMBINATE OVERCROWDING, OVERCROWDED HOUSING BY PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THIS AREA, THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION HAS SPOKEN IN OUR COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE.
THEREFORE THEY SHOULD NOT BE OVERWRITTEN.
THESE MEASURES ARE IN PLACE TO PROTECT OUR PROPERTY VALUES AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AGAIN, THIS SHOULD NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED VIRGINIA RICHARD, PLEASE.
NO AGAINST THE QUESTION IN COURT DEVELOPMENT, THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD INCREASE TRAFFIC DRAMATICALLY ON JEFFERSON HIGHWAY, WHERE THERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN A SERIES OF SERIOUS ACCIDENTS.
OLD GOODWOOD IS KNOWN FOR ITS BEAUTIFUL OAK TREES AND LARGE LOTS.
IT'S SAD TO SEE TOO MANY HOUSES CRAMMED ON SMALL LOTS.
IT TAKES AWAY THE CHARM PERSONALITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
LYDIA, BEFORE I POSED THE DEVELOPMENT FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, TWO OF WHICH ARE THE DENSITY OF THE PROJECT, WHICH EXCEEDS THE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL MAXIMUM AND REMOVAL OF NUMEROUS OAK TREES.
ADDITIONALLY, THE IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
17 YEARS AGO, WE CHOSE ALL GOODWOOD BECAUSE OF THE CHARM OF THE HOMES, THE LARGE LOTS BEAUTIFUL OAK TREES, WHICH ARE A HALLMARK OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AS WELL AS THE PEOPLE.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL ERODE THE UNIQUENESS AND BEAUTY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THAT WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT OUR COMMUNITY.
AND CONSIDERING THIS PROPOSAL, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU CONSIDER THE NEGATIVE IMPACT THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY AND VOTE NOTARY ZONING, TIM HELEN, THE LEFT TURN OUT OF REYNOLDS ON JEFFERSON HIGHWAY HAS ALWAYS BEEN DANGEROUS.
THE TURN IS BOND AND I CAN'T COUNT THE NUMBER OF TIMES I HAD TO BRAKE TO AVOID HITTING A CAR.
SINCE 1982 RONALD'S TRAFFIC WAS DESIGNED WAS, WAS DURING THE DAYLIGHT WITH THIS OVERLORD AND NEIGHBORHOOD REPLACING REYNOLDS, IT WILL BE 24.
IT WILL BE DEAD MAN'S CURVE AT NIGHT.
FINALLY, JEFFERSON HAS A STATE HIGHWAY.
HAS ANYBODY CONTACTED THE STATE ABOUT THIS ISSUE? NORMAN RYAN AS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL, THE GOODWILL PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION STANDS IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED ICEBERG, AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
THE STATED PURPOSE OF GPO IS TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING AWAN, SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL ZONING OF GOODWOOD IN HARMONY WITH THE APPROPRIATE ADJACENT BUSINESS INTEREST.
THE GPOA BOARD REPRESENTATIVES REQUESTED THE DEVELOPERS TO PURSUE ADJUSTMENTS, TO DENSITY AND OTHER ISSUES.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAS RECEIVED NUMEROUS CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROPOSED ICE BUD.
AS WITH ALL MATTERS OF THIS NATURE, WE CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE ALL GPO MEMBERS, ESPECIALLY THOSE IMPACTED WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO OBTAIN AND REVIEW THE INFORMATION, ATTEND THE MEETINGS PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER AND EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS TO DEVELOPER AND COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE THE GPA, GPO, A BOARD OF DIRECTORS HERE BY REQUEST DENIAL OF THE ASPECT AS SUBMITTED DUE TO THE IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS OBJECTION IS BASED ON THE PROPOSED DENSITY AND SETBACKS TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
THESE DO NOT FIT WITH THE ESTABLISHED TRADITIONS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
GPOA OFFERED TO FACILITATE PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND FURTHER OFFER TO PLACE THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA AT AN UPCOMING GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING, THESE OFFERS WERE IGNORED BY THE DEVELOPERS AND TO DATE, THE DEVELOPERS HAVE OFFERED NO DISCUSSION OR COMPROMISE CONCERNING THEM OBJECTIONS, AMANDA WYATT, THIS WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT OUR COMMUNITY AND PROPERTY FOR THE NUMEROUS REASONS OTHERS HAD MENTIONED.
I STERNLY OPPOSED THIS DEVELOPMENT, STEVEN DELLACROCE, THIS PROPOSAL EXCEEDS THE EXISTING AWAN RESIDENTIAL MAXIMUM DENSITY.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE CUTTING DOWN ANY LIVE OAK TREES TO FURTHER DENUDE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD EXITING ONTO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY AT THIS BLOCKER WILL PROVE DANGEROUS AS WELL.
OUR COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE LORI ADAMS HAS ALREADY EXPRESSED HER CONSTITUENTS WISHES ON THE PROJECT VOTING NOW, KELLY DELLA CROW.
I OPPOSE THE REZONING OF THE REYNOLDS PROPERTY AT THE CURB JEFFERSON HIGHWAY TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF MULTIPLE HOMES ON AROUND A TWO SITE.
THIS SEEMS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY INCREASE TRAFFIC ON JEFFERSON, ESPECIALLY IN THE EVENING AT PEAK HOURS AS A MEMBER OF THE PROPERTY ASSOCIATION.
I ALSO VALUE ALL OF OUR BELOVED LIVE OAKS.
I RECENTLY PURCHASED THEM, BEGAN CONSTRUCTION ON WHAT IS TO BE MY NEW HOME ON SIX, FIVE, THREE, SIX SOUTH NEAR CARROLLTON.
I WOULD LIKE TO GO ON RECORD AS BEING OPPOSED TO THE APPROVAL OF A QUESTION IN COURT AND THE REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY FROM A ONE, THE DENSITY AND SETBACKS ARE NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CURRENT STANDARDS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND ONLY BENEFIT THE DEVELOPER IN PLANNING MY NEW HOME, WHICH WE ARE BUILDING FROM THE GROUND UP.
I AM FOLLOWING THE CITY'S GUIDELINES
[01:00:01]
FOR 25 FOOT SETBACK.WHEREAS THIS DEVELOPER IS ASKING FOR 10 FOR MULTIPLE PROPERTIES, SET THREE FEET APART, WHICH WE'LL BACK UP TO MY NEW HOME AND MY NEIGHBORS.
WHEN WE PURCHASED THE LOT IN DECEMBER, WE WERE UNAWARE THAT THERE WILL BE CHANGES AS THE PROPERTY WE BACK UP TO IS CURRENTLY ZONED DAY ONE.
WE WERE VERY CONCERNED THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BRING DOWN PROPERTY VALUES FOR THE OLD GOODWIN NEIGHBORHOOD EDISON FOR IT.
IF PROPERTY DRAINAGE IS ADDRESSED, GWEN BEES AT I'M AGAINST THIS DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF DRAINAGE ISSUES, DENSITY INCREASED TRAFFIC.
THE PROJECT ITSELF DOES NOT FIT THE OLD GOODWOOD AREA WHERE WE HAVE YARDS THAT ARE NOT ON TOP OF EACH OTHER.
SUNNY CALANDRA I'D VOTE NO TO THIS PROJECT.
JENNIFER YOHAN, I WOULD LIKE TO VOICE MY OPPOSITION TO THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT SIX FOUR FIVE FIVE JEFFERSON HIGHWAY.
I THINK PUTTING AN ADULT DEVELOPMENT OF THAT SIZE ON THAT PROPERTY WOULDN'T HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA, NOT JUST IN INCREASED TRAFFIC, BUT ALSO IN THE LOSS OF MANY LARGE OLD GROWTH TREES.
IT'S A SHAME THAT ANYTIME THERE IS A VACANT PIECE OF PROPERTY DEVELOPERS FIRST THOUGHT IS TO PAVE IT OVER AND BUILD AS MANY PROPERTIES AS THEY CAN IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE OUR PROFITS OVERALL EFFECT TO THE AREA AND HIS NEIGHBORS AREN'T EVEN AN AFTERTHOUGHT.
MORE MONEY AND EFFORT SHOULD BE PUT INTO REVITALIZING NEGLECTED AREAS, RENOVATING EXISTING PROPERTIES OR BUILDING NEW HOUSING ON BLIGHTED PROPERTIES.
LIZ, JESSE, I FELT 13 HOUSES IN THAT TWO ACRE LOT IS JUST WAY TOO MANY AND NEEDS TO BE REDUCED.
DEVELOPERS TRY TO MAX OUT THE NUMBER OF HOMES AND THIS LEADS TO OVERCROWDING AND TRAFFIC ISSUES.
I'M A RETIRE REALTOR OF 30 YEARS, AND I'VE SEEN DEVELOPERS DO THIS ALL OVER TOWN, WHICH IS WHY TRAFFIC IS ALREADY TERRIBLE HERE.
SUZANNE CREWS OF NO TO THIS ITEM, WILLIAM WHITE, I'M WRITING TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO A QUESTION IN COURT IN DEVELOPMENT THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE BUILT ON THE LAND THAT WAS FORMERLY OCCUPIED BY THE REYNOLDS SCHOOL.
I NO NOTED THIS ITEM AND HOPE THAT THE ZONING COMMITTEE VOTES NO, AS WELL AS A RESIDENT OF ALL GOODWIN NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS NOT THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT I WANT TO SEE IN THE AREA.
KATHLEEN MCCUTCHEON, A HIGH DENSITY HOUSING WITH THREE FOOT SETBACKS DO NOT PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE OLD GOOD GOODWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 1953 AND WANT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVED MATTHEW DIAZ ON FURTHER REVIEW.
IT APPEARS THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE BUILT IN A HAPHAZARD FASHION WILL RUN COUNTER TO THE HISTORICAL A1C ZONING.
AND WE WILL BE IN FOR DECADES, DECADES OF REGRET ON THIS, THIS DECISION, CONNIE, DAVID, THE QUESTION AGAIN, WHERE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AND REZONING SHOULD BE DENIED.
I'M A RESIDENT OF OLD GOODWOOD I'M OPPOSED TO THE QUESTION IN COURT DEVELOPMENT.
THESE PROJECTS ARE LIKELY EXTREMELY PROFITABLE FOR A FEW DEVELOPERS, BUT ARE NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE HISTORY OR FABRIC OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I LOVE THE DIVERSITY THAT OLD GOODWOOD ATTRACTS, BUT IT IS A DEFINITE STYLE AND HISTORY THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT RESPECT.
IF APPROVED THIS ONE DEVELOPMENT WILL ALSO OPEN THE DOOR FOR MANY OTHER SIMILAR HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS ALONG JEFFERSON HIGHWAY THAT WOULD DETRACT FROM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE FACT THAT I'LL OBVIOUS WAS HIRED TO INFLUENCE COUNTY COUNCIL VOTES IS CONCERNING RATHER THAN MEETING WITH THE CONCERN NEIGHBORS.
ANOTHER INDICATION THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF THE RIVER, PLEASE VOTE NO TO THIS DEVELOPMENT TARA HOT STREAM.
I OBJECTED THE REZONING OF THE FORMAL RENTAL SCHOOL PROPERTY TO ALLOW 13, TWO STORY HOUSES, ALISON AND RICHARD WINCOTT.
WE THINK THIS REZONING OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO OLD GOODWOOD.
NOT ONLY WOULD THIS BUILDER BE REMOVING BEAUTIFUL, OLD LIVE OAK TREES, THEY WILL BE MAKING DRAINAGE PROBLEMS FOR SO MANY OF US IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF PUTTING 13 TWO STORY HOUSES ON SUCH A SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY WOULD BE A CROWDED SITUATION AT BEST.
THERE'S NOT EVEN ENOUGH ROOM FOR A TWO-WAY ROAD ON THIS PROPERTY.
IT WILL END UP BEING A ONE-WAY ROAD, WHICH WILL MAKE FOR POSSIBLE CONFUSION GOING IN AND OUT OF THE STREET FROM JEFFERSON HIGHWAY RESULTING IN POSSIBLE ACCIDENTS.
WE, THE RESIDENTS OF ALL GOODWILL NEIGHBORHOOD BOUGHT OUR HOMES HERE TO HAVE AN INVESTMENT THAT WOULD GROW DURING OUR TIME LIVING IN THIS COMMUNITY, SURROUNDED BY BEAUTY, NOT BY TREELESS STREETS, CONSUMED WITH HOMES, BUILT ON LOTS, TOO SMALL TO SUSTAIN THEM.
THIS NEW LOOK WILL NOT MESH WITH THE BEAUTY OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE LOVE.
I MEAN, STEVEN MERIT, I RESIDE AT SIX, 9,300 GOVERNMENT STREET IN GOODWOOD.
I WISH TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO US, BUD TO FOUR, WHICH IS THE PROPOSED HIGH DENSITY TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT ON JEFFERSON HIGHWAY.
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, INCREASED TRAFFIC ON OUR ALREADY BUSY STREET.
THE TOPS OF THE HOMES WILL BE OVER 40 FOOT, WHICH WOULD TOWER OVER ALL OF THE PR OF THE OTHER PROPERTY IN THE AREA AND EXCEEDS THE HIGHEST HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AREA.
DEVELOPERS CHOSEN TO IGNORE IT AND EXCEED IT.
MINIMAL PARKING PROVIDER ON THE PROPERTY, THUS CREATING A PARKING LOT AT ATMOSPHERE AND A GOOD RESIDENTIAL AREA.
13 TOWNHOMES ON LESS THAN 2.02 ACRES FAR EXCEEDS THE NUMBER OF RESIDENCES IN THAT GIVEN SPACE, ANYWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE DEVELOPERS ABSOLUTE REFUSAL TO COMPROMISE ON ANY PART
[01:05:01]
OF THIS PLANS.WE IN ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR HELP IN DENYING THE DEVELOPERS REQUESTS, CAROLINE ROSS, 13 TWO-STORY 40 FOOT HIGH HOUSES ON A TWO ACRE LOT.
HOW GREEDY DEVELOPING THIS FORMER PRESCHOOL INTO UPSCALE HOUSING IS GOOD.
NOT SO MANY EIGHT HOUSES THAT MOST IS PLENTY MODESTLY SIZED HOMES WITH NICE FINISHES ARE RARE AND DESIRABLE DESIRABLE.
MAKE THIS A LOVELY PLACE FOR MIDDLE AGED PEOPLE TO DOWNSIZE.
MCMANSIONS ARE PLENTIFUL AND WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE.
DRAINAGE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOODS NEIGHBORS FROM CAMERON AVENUE TO SOUTH CARROLLTON DRAINAGE ALREADY A BIG ISSUE DON'T NEED 13 COMPACT AT HOMES TO ADD MORE PROBLEMS TO THE DITCH DRAINAGE.
CATHERINE MERIT, I LIVE ON GOVERNMENT STREET AND OLD GOODWOOD I'M ON THE BOARD OF THE GOODWOOD PARK, PRETTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION.
AFTER SPEAKING WITH MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS TO GET FEEDBACK ON THIS, I HAVE NOT FOUND A SINGLE PERSON WHO SUPPORTED OR WAS A NEUTRAL ON THE QUESTION IN COURT DEVELOPMENT ALL WERE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO DEVELOPER'S CURRENT PROPOSAL.
WHEN MR WASHER WAS APPROACHED BY THE OTHER GPO BOARD MEMBERS WITH A REQUEST, HE CONSIDER A LESS CROWDED DESIGN.
HE HAD NO INTENTION TO COMPROMISE ON ANY OF HIS PLANS OR, OR NUMBERS AND DIDN'T CARE WHAT IT DID TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED 13 HOME MICRO COMPOUND WILL BE SQUEEZED UNDER TWO ACRES BETWEEN TWO TRADITIONAL HOMES ON JEFFERSON.
AND THAT WAY 13 HOMES ON TWO ACRES FAR EXCEEDS THE NUMBER OF RESIDENCES IN THAT GIVEN SPACE, ANYWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS OVERCROWDED DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT ADD QUALITY OR BE AN ASSET TO OUR BEAUTIFUL SCENIC NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT WILL STICK OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB DUE TO A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 40 FEET, WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT AND WILL TOWER OVER OTHER HOMES.
IN THIS AREA, I'LL ASK THAT YOU ARE THE WISHES OF GOOGLE RESIDENTS AND VOTE.
NO REBECCA
AS I FIRMLY BELIEVE IT WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE AREA AND CREATE EVEN MORE TRAFFIC ISSUES AND CONGESTION THAT ALREADY EXIST IN THE AREA.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPERTY IS NOT LARGE ENOUGH FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND WILL DRASTICALLY DECREASE VALUES IN THE AREA.
RYAN PITCHFORD THE PETITION DRAINAGE ISSUES.
FURTHERMORE, THE CURVE AT JEFFERSON IS ALWAYS DANGEROUS AND ADDING 13 HOUSEHOLDS TO THIS AS TO THE POTENTIAL OF FATAL TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS VOTE NO HENRY KENNY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BATTERY THERE'S COUNSEL, ALL RIGHT, TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSAL, ZONING CHANGE ON JEFFERSON HIGHWAY AND THE GOODWILL NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS REZONING EFFORT IS WITHOUT PRECEDENT AS THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY DEMONSTRATED FACTS, WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY OUR REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY.
ZONING CANNOT BE CHANGED WITHOUT STUDY AND PLANNING INPUT, WHICH INFORMED THE BASIS FOR A NEEDED CHANGE IN CLASSIFICATION.
SECONDLY, THIS REZONING WOULD BE A PURELY ILLEGAL SPOT ZONE.
QUITE SIMPLY, THIS NEW ZONING CLASSIFICATION IS NOT CONTIGUOUS TO ANY SIMILAR CLASSIFIED PROPERTY AND WOULD NOT BE REMOTELY SIMILAR TO CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES.
THE SPOT ZONING INTRODUCES HARMFUL RELAXATION OF RESIDENTIAL RESTRICTIONS TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH IS ALL ZONED A ONE RESIDENTIAL LOUISIANA LAW PROHIBITS SPOT ZONING OF THIS TYPE THOROUGHLY.
THIS SPOT ZONE WOULD WREAK HAVOC ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS AND THEIR PROPERTY VALUES.
EVERYONE ELSE MUST COMPLY WITH WELL-THOUGHT-OUT DENSITY RESTRICTIONS, INCLUDING REAR YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS.
WE ARE ALL REQUIRED TO BUILD 10 FEET FROM SIDE YARD NEIGHBORS AND 25 FEET FROM OUR NEIGHBORS.
THIS DEVELOPER WANTS TO CONSTRUCT 40 FOOT HOUSES WITHIN THREE FEET OF THE SIDELIGHTS AND 10 FOOT OF THE REAR.
IMAGINE HAVING A HOUSE SO CLOSE ON YOUR SIDE OF CHA A CHILD COULD TOUCH IT.
AND YES, MY WIFE AND I BOUGHT IN THE REAR CORNER OF THIS PROPERTY.
FOR WHAT REASON? GREATER PROFIT MARY JANE MERRILL, DEFINITELY OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING TOO CROWDED AND DANGEROUS FOR ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC RIGHT IN THE CURVE ON JEFFERSON.
PAULINE'S EARN IT FOR 28 YEARS.
MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE OWNED THE ADJACENT 1.88 ACRES OCCUPIED BY TWO HOMES TO THE IMMEDIATE WEST OF THE AWAN PROPERTY BEING PROPOSED TO REZONE AS AN ICE.
BUT IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE TO LIVE NEXT DOOR TO RONALD SCHOOL.
ALTHOUGH THE BACKUP OF TRAFFIC DURING CERTAIN TIMES OF THE DAY HAVE BEEN A HASSLE.
OUR CONCERN, THE POTENTIAL FOR AN EVEN WORSE CIRCUMSTANCES BOUND TO HAPPEN AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED 13 HOMES ON THE LAND, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF 13 HOUSES ON THE REYNOLDS PRESCHOOL PROPERTY FAR EXCEEDS A ONE ZONING, WHICH IS DESIGNATED FOR LOW DENSITY HOUSING CONSISTING OF 4.1 HOMES PER ACRES.
THE DEVELOPER IS ASKING FOR AN INCREASE USE OF THE LAND BY 68%.
THIS DOES NOT MEET THE MEASURES OF A1C ZONING, AND THEREFORE A LOOPHOLE IS NEEDED FOR THE BUILDER.
CONTINUE THIS PROJECT AS DEFINED THE INTENTION FOR AN ICEBERG IS TO PROVIDE PROVISIONS OF NEED TO THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
ONE CAN EASILY SEE BY DRIVING AROUND THE GOODWOOD AREA.
THERE'S NO SORT OF SHORTAGE OF HOUSING, THEREFORE, NO NEED FOR THIS ICE BUD.
THE ONLY REASON FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT TO BE ALLOWED IS NOT TO FILL A NEED FOR THE AREA, BUT RATHER FILL THE POCKETS
[01:10:01]
OF THOSE INVOLVED, EXTREME DENSITY, DRAINAGE, FLOODING, EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS, NO VISITOR PARKING GARBAGE PICKUP.THE LIST OF CONCERNS GOES ON EXTREME HIGH DENSITY OF THIS PROPERTY.
BEING THE MAIN CONCERN AS AT LEAST THE POTENTIAL FOR CAT CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES.
CURRENTLY THIS AREA LOCATION ON JEFFERSON HIGHWAY HAS VERY LITTLE HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUME WITH MOTORISTS GOING WELL ABOVE THIS BIG LIMITS.
AS A RESULT, MULTIPLE ACCIDENTS OCCUR EACH YEAR AT THIS LOCATION, EVEN WITH THE PROPOSED ADJACENT TO THE GATED ENTRANCE OF THE ICEBERG, THERE IS STILL A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR CONCERN.
IT IS NOT A MATTER OF IF A DEADLY ACCIDENT WILL HAPPEN, BUT RATHER WHEN A DAILY ACCIDENT WILL OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, I ASKED YOU TO HELP PRESERVE ALL GOODWOOD.
IN ADDITION TO THE HAZARDS OF THE TRAFFIC ISSUES AND ABUNDANCE OF ICE BUDS COULD BE IN OUR FUTURE.
AS THIS PROJECT WILL OPEN THE FLOOD GATES FOR OTHER AWAN PROPERTIES TO BE PROPOSED FOR REZONING OF SUCH DEVELOPMENTS FOREVER CHANGING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD OLD GOODWOOD IS SPECIAL.
AND WHILE CHANGE CHANGES MOST OFTEN, GOOD GREED IS NOT.
PLEASE CONSIDER THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS WISHES TO PRESERVE THIS AWAN PARCEL OF LAND THAT IS LINED WITH BEAUTIFUL, THE CENTURY OLD TREES, BOTH OF WHICH WILL NO LONGER BE IN EXISTENCE.
IF YOU VOTE FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE IS UNLAWFUL USE OF LAND AS AN ICE BUD THOMAS GRAVES, I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF GOODWOOD FOR MY ENTIRE 50 YEARS AND WATER DRAINAGE ISSUES CONTINUE TO GET WORSE EVERY YEAR.
A LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE ON THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS IS A MAJOR REASON I'M AGAINST THIS PROJECT.
AS I FEEL IT GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING THAT HAS MADE GOOD WITH THE GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD IT CURRENTLY IS, AND HOPEFULLY WILL BE IN THE FUTURE.
EL LINGLE, THIS PROJECT WILL PLACE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE AREA.
FIRST, THERE IS THE RUNOFF PROBLEM, ALL THE GRASS AND TREES THAT ARE NOW ABSORBING THE WATER WILL BE PAID OVER WITH NOWHERE FOR THE EXCESS WATER TO GO.
IT WILL FLOW EITHER INTO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES OR INTO THE STREET OR THE EXISTING SEWER SYSTEM BE ABLE TO HANDLE IT.
OR WHEN PEOPLE WIND UP WITH SEWAGE BACKFLOW IN THEIR HOMES, SECOND, IT PLACES A STRAIN ON ALREADY EXISTING RESOURCES, SUCH AS WATER, SEWAGE, ELECTRICITY, INTERNET, ET CETERA.
YOU CAN ONLY STRETCH AND ADD ON AND DIVIDE RESOURCES SO MUCH BEFORE THE SYSTEM BECOMES OVERSTRAINED AND COLLAPSES.
TRAFFIC IS ALREADY A PROBLEM IN THAT AREA, GIVEN ALL THE NEW DEVELOPMENT OVER THE PAST DECADE, LARGE MULTI-UNIT AND APARTMENT CONDOS, COMPLEXES TOWN CENTER, AND A HOST OF NEW BUSINESSES HAVE ALREADY STAINED RESOURCES.
IT CHANGES THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE ARE ALREADY TOO MANY HAPHAZARDLY BUILT SMALL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE OLD GOODWOOD AREA.
THERE WILL BE OVER 70 LARGE HOMES ON THE SAME AREA OF LAND, WHERE THERE WERE ONCE FIVE MODEST AND ONE LARGE HOME.
HAVING THESE SPRUNG UP SMALL DEVELOPMENTS MAKES THE AREAS SEEM CHAOTIC AND POORLY PLANNED.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
THE DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT FIT THE DIVERSE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL ADD TRAFFIC AND SAFETY CONCERNS TO THE ALREADY CROWDED JEFFERSON HIGHWAY AREA OF GOODWOOD IT.
WHY HAS MR. WASH HOUR HIRED A PROFESSIONAL LOBBYIST TO PUSH PASSAGE OF THIS THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL? OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS COMPRISED OF YOUNG FAMILIES, PROFESSIONALS AND RETIRED PEOPLE.
ALL NEIGHBORS I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ARE ALSO STRONGLY AGAINST IT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE OTHER POTENTIAL BUYERS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THIS PROPERTY.
SOME OF THOSE WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CHALLENGE THE
THIS IS NOT GOOD FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
CHRISTIE PEAK AS A RESIDENT OF OLD GOODWOOD FOR ALMOST 55 YEARS, I'M OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT GOES AGAINST THE CURRENT AWAN RESIDENTIAL ZONING.
ONE OF THE ATTRACTIONS OF OLD GOODWOOD IS THE LARGE LOT SIZE.
I'M AFRAID THAT ALLOWING THIS TO PASS WILL CREATE A PRECEDENT THAT WILL DESTROY THE UNIQUE QUALITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT'S SO DESIRABLE TO ITS CURRENT RESIDENTS AND CONSISTENTLY GROWN IN VALUE.
BROKER HUSBAND IS A CERTIFIED APPRAISER AND WE BOTH ADAMANTLY OPPOSED THIS DEVELOPER, KIM BAGLEY.
POSE THE PASSAGE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
WE HAVE NEVER HAD TOWERING BUILDINGS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY 40 FOOT TALL ONES LOOMING OVER MUCH SMALLER ONES.
IT JUST DOESN'T FIT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC IN THIS AREA ALREADY BUSY AREA OF JEFFERSON HIGHWAY WILL BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED THE PROPOSED HIGH DENSITY NATURE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL CHANGE THE CHARACTER AND SAFETY OF THE GOODWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT PROPOSAL SEEMS TO BE PUSHED THROUGH BY THE DEVELOPER WITH LITTLE CONVERSATION WITH THOSE OF US AS PROPERTY OWNERS.
HOWEVER, ONCE THE OTHER NEIGHBORS OR PRESENTED WITH THE FACTS, THERE ARE ALSO IN STRONG OPPOSITION, PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT.
I OPPOSE THE PROJECT AS IT DOES NOT FIT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
[01:15:01]
HOUSES ON THE PROPERTY.THE PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOTHING TO ADD VALUE TO THE OLD GOODWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS.
I THINK IT IS A SAFETY HAZARD AND THERE WILL BE MANY TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AT THIS SITE.
THE SPEED LIMIT ON JEFFERSON HIGHWAY IS 45 MILES PER HOUR IN A CURVE.
TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN HERE.
THERE ARE TOO MANY HOUSES ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
THIS DOES NOTHING TO BETTER OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD.
CASEY MEYER, I OPPOSE THE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF HOUSES THAT ARE PROPOSED ON THIS DEVELOPMENT.
IT DOES NOT FIT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL MONROE.
HELLO? I'M WRITING STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED NEW ICEBERG DEVELOPMENT AT THE SIDE OF THE REYNOLDS SCHOOL ON JEFFERSON HIGHWAY.
I THINK THIS DEVELOPMENT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR RESIDENTIAL AREA.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
PAMELA WALKER, PLEASE REJECT THIS REZONING, UH, JANUS TOOLING TO THE BATON ROUGE, METRO COUNCIL MEMBERS.
PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING EMAILS, MY HUSBAND AND MYSELF ALONG THE OLD GOODWOOD NEIGHBORS ARE ASKING YOU TO VOTE NO TO THE PROPOSED EQUESTRIAN COURT DEVELOPMENT.
UM, SHE PROVIDES COPIES OF, UH, SOME EMAILS, UH, EMAIL FROM, UH, COUNCILMAN ADAMS, UH, INDICATING HER CONCERNS REGARDING THE DENSITY AND SETBACKS AND INDICATING THAT SHE PLANS TO VOTE.
NO A RESPONSE FROM MS. TOOLEY, MS. ADAMS. I AM EMAILING YOU AS I AM NOT SURE THE OLD GOODWOOD RESIDENTS ARE DOING AND ASKING YOU TO VOTE NO.
ON THE PROPOSED EQUESTRIAN COURT DEVELOPMENT AT THE NOW VACANT RENTAL SCHOOL PROPERTY.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WOLF WASH OUR PLANS TO BUILD 13 TWO-STORY HOUSES ON LESS THAN TWO ACRES OF LAND, GIVEN THE TRAFFIC AND DRAINAGE ISSUES THAT HAVE INCREASED EXPONENTIALLY OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS OR SO, THIS WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IN MY OPINION, OLD GOODWOOD IS ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AND DESIRABLE NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY.
AND I'M SURE THAT THESE HOMES WOULD LIKELY BE SOLD FOR THAT VERY REASON.
BUT IF THE CITY CONTINUES TO ALLOW THESE DEVELOPMENTS THAT CREATE TRAFFIC HAZARDS AND FLOODING TO BE BUILT SOLELY FOR INDU INDIVIDUAL PROFIT, OUR NEIGHBORHOODS WILL SUFFER AND NOT JUST OLD GOODWOOD THE BUILDERS EITHER DON'T KNOW THE TRAFFIC AND DRAINAGE ISSUES OR THEY SIMPLY DON'T CARE.
AND WHERE WILL THESE PEOPLE PARK THEIR CARS? WE HAVE HAD, WE HAVE LIVED AT THIS ADDRESS FOR 32 PLUS YEARS WITH ROUGHLY AND UNTIL ROUGHLY ONE YEAR AGO, DID NOT HAVE ANY FLOODING ISSUES THAT WE NOW FACE.
ALMOST EVERY TIME WE HAVE A RAINSTORM PLACING SLABS OF CONCRETE ON POSTAGE STAMP SIZE, LOTS OF GROUND LEAVES THE WATER, NOWHERE TO GO EXCEPT TO OUR YARDS.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT EQUATES TO BUILDING THREE AND ONE FOURTH OF THESE HOMES ON A LOT, THE SIZE OF OURS, WHICH IS A 110 FOOT BY 200 FOOT, LIKE MANY OTHER LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHEN DOES THIS STOP? WE ALL LIVE WITHIN BREATHING DISTANCE OF EACH OTHER.
I AM RESPECTFULLY ASKING YOU TO VOTE NO TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN ANY OTHERS LIKE IT IN THE FUTURE.
MY HUSBAND AND I AS WELL HAVE ALL, ALL AS WELL AS ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS CONTINUALLY TRYING TO MAKE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITY BETTER FOR ALL OF US, EVEN FOR THOSE OF US WHO DON'T LIVE HERE, BUT DRIVE ON THE STREETS OF OLD GOODWOOD, THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, TED SANDEFUR.
I FEEL THE DENSITY OF HOMES IN THIS DEVELOPMENT IS TOO HIGH.
I SEE NO REASON FOR LOTS OF THE SIZE FOUND AN OLD GOODWOOD TO EVER RELAX THE CURRENT RULES ON SETBACKS.
ALSO AS THE NAME OF OUR NEIGHBOR, OLD GOODWOOD IMPLIES TREES.
WHY WOULD ANY WHOLESALE DESTRUCTION OF TREES BE ALLOWED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT? SOON, WE WILL NEED TO CHANGE, CHANGE THE NAME TO KNOW GOODWOOD.
ONCE ONE LAST CONCERN IS JEFFERSON HIGHWAY.
IT IS ALREADY HEAVY, FAST, AND COMING FROM A CURVE.
THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MY CONCERNS.
I'M WRITING AN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED ICE, BUT PROJECT AT THE FORMER FORMER RENTAL SCHOOL PROPERTY.
THIS DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSING A PROJECT OF 13 HOMES WITH UP TO 40 FOOT HEIGHTS ON 2.01 ACRES AS A PROPERTY OWNER WITH PROXIMITY TO THE PROJECT, I HAVE SEVERAL CONCERNS.
GOODWOOD PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION STATED PURPOSE IS TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING A1C SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL ZONING OF GOODWOOD IN HARMONY WITH THE APPROPRIATE ADJACENT BUSINESS INTERESTS.
THE DEVELOPER FOR EQUESTRIAN COURT IS PROPOSING APPROXIMATELY 6.5 HOMES PER ACRE, WHICH GOES AGAINST THIS PURPOSE.
THE THREE FOOTPRINT POSTS THAT BACK AND HEIGHT POTENTIAL OF THE DWELLINGS ARE ALSO VERY CONCERNING BECAUSE OF ITS INTRUSIVENESS ON ALL PROPERTIES THAT ARE WITHIN PROXIMITY OF THE PROJECT.
PRIVACY CAN BE INVADED BY SOMEONE VIEWING INTO YARDS AND RESIDENCES FROM SECOND STORY WINDOWS AND BALCONIES WITH THREE FOOT PROPOSED SETBACKS.
THERE IS NO ROOM FOR COLUMN OR TREES.
THE PROPERTY IS ALSO BOASTING OVER A DOZEN MATURE OAK TREES THAT WOULD BE DESTROYED TO ACCOMMODATE THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROPER DRAINAGE OF STORMWATER IS ALREADY A PROBLEM SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY.
THE PROPOSAL SAYS THAT THE STORM WATER
[01:20:01]
WILL BE ROUTED TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY.JEFFERSON HIGHWAY ALREADY HAS KNOWN ISSUES WITH STANDING WATER.
CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS ALREADY EXPERIENCED UNSTABLE FLOOD AREAS DUE TO THE CURRENT DRAINAGE ISSUES WITHIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THE PROJECT WILL ONLY AMPLIFY AN ALREADY EXISTING PROBLEM.
MY FAMILY AND I MOVED TO OLD GOODWOOD BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUENESS AND SPACIOUSNESS OF THE PROPERTIES MAXIMIZE PRIVACY, LARGE MATURE TREES AND AMPLE GREEN SPACE WITHIN THE CONVENIENCE OF BEING IN MID-CITY.
THE PROJECT GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING THAT ALL GOODWOOD STANDS FOR THE TRADITIONS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS AN OLD GOODWOOD RESIDENT.
AND I URGE YOU TO DENY THIS REQUEST FOR REZONING LISA BOND, FANNY IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT.
I AM CONCERNED JACK FOR A FEW REASONS.
FIRST 13 HOME PROVIDES TOO MUCH DENSITY FOR AN ALREADY CROWDED AREA.
SECONDLY, THE SIZE OF LOSS FOR 13 HOMES FROM WHICH I HAVE HEARD PROVIDE DRAINAGE ISSUES AND NOT ENOUGH SPACE FOR GARBAGE TRUCKS TO ENTER THE SMALL AREAS OF THESE HOMES.
THIS WOULD THEN DIRECT ALL TRASH CANS TO BE PLACED ON JEFFERSON HIGHWAY, ALL IN RED, ALREADY IN AN ALREADY DANGEROUS BLINDING CURVE OF JEFFERSON HIGHWAY.
MY CONCERNS THAT THIS COULD BE A LIABILITY ISSUE FOR THOSE UNAWARE DRIVERS ALREADY DRIVING 45 MILES PER HOUR ABOVE INTO A BLINDING CURVE.
WE'RE IN A GARBAGE TRUCK COULD BE STOPPED LOADING TRASH CANS BEFORE SUNRISE, IF SEVEN OR EIGHT HOMES WERE BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY, THE PIECE OF LAND AND LIABILITY COULD BE PROVEN SUSAN STENTS.
I OPPOSED THIS ICE BED REQUEST DEVELOPMENT ON THE FORMER REYNOLDS SCHOOL SITE ON JEFFERSON HIGHWAY.
I BELIEVE THIS IS NOT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT IS HIGHLY DENSE, A HIGHLY DENSE PROJECT, NOT IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.
ADDITIONALLY, I AM CONCERNED WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES SUCH AS TRAFFIC, OKAY, DRAINAGE, UM, RONNIE HARRIS COUNCIL MEMBERS, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT I'M AN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED REZONING OF A QUESTIONING IN COURT, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE DEFERMENT OF THIS ITEM FROM LAST MONTH AND THE REFUSAL OF THE DEVELOPERS TO MAKE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROPOSAL.
I STAND BY THE SAME POINTS I MADE IN MY EMAIL TO EACH OF YOU ON MARCH 17TH, 2021, WITH SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, THE VERY IDEA OF ZONING, A PROPERTY PROTECTION FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
SIMPLY PUT PEOPLE, INVEST IN PROPERTIES FOR HOMES IN AREAS WHERE ZONING WILL ENSURE THE FUTURE USE OF LIGHT DEVELOPMENT.
CONVERSELY, COMMERCIAL ENTITIES, LOCATING COMMERCIALS, ZONED AREAS TO ENSURE THAT RESIDENTIAL ENCROACHMENT DOES NOT AFFECT THEIR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES.
IN THIS CASE, THE ICE DEVELOPMENT CREATES A MASS HOUSING DENSITY IN A PREVIOUSLY AWAN ZONED ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL AREA.
IF YOU APPROVE OF THIS TYPE OF FILAMENT, WILL YOU APPROVE ONE, TWO OR 10 MORE IN THE FUTURE? THE PROBLEM SETTING RESENT THE PRECEDENT SETTING REZONING REQUEST WILL DICTATE APPROVAL OF FUTURE REQUESTS AND PROPERTIES ON JEFFERSON ARE ZONED DAY ONE AND ARE MORE, MORE THAN ONE IN AND OUT.
IN SOME CASES, TWO ACRES OF LAND IN GOVERNMENT ELECTED OFFICIALS SHOULD AVOID DECISIONS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.
THEREFORE, ANY ACTION YOU TAKE TODAY MAY FORCE YOU TO APPROVE SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FUTURE.
ALTHOUGH I AM NOT A NEIGHBOR ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT, I AM A RESIDENT AND VALUE THE ENTIRE OLD GOODWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT PRESENTLY EXISTS BY VOTING NO ON THIS PROPOSAL WILL ALLOW YOU TO SAY NO TO SIMILAR PROPOSALS IN THE FUTURE.
OTHERWISE THE CHARACTER OF THE GOODWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD WILL CHANGE DRAMATICALLY IN THE FUTURE.
A CHARACTER THAT PRESENT RESIDENTS OF GOODWOOD DID NOT AND DO NOT CHOOSE TO HAVE CHRIS DICKSON.
I RECENTLY RECEIVED NEWS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT NEAR MY HOME IN OLD GOODWOOD.
I VISITED THE PROPOSED SITE AND CANNOT SEE THIS AS A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPOSAL WILL NOT FIT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WILL LIKELY CREATE DRAINAGE AND TRAFFIC ISSUES.
THE AESTHETICS AND DENSITY OF THE PROPOSAL IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
NO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER, WE HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL COMMENT, THE COMMENT, OR DID NOT INDICATE WHETHER SHE WAS, UM, IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED, BUT, UH, CAROLINE MESSENGER, UM, JUST SUBMITTED A COMMENT THAT CONCLUDES THE EMAIL PUBLIC COMMENTS, BUT IT'S TIME FOR THE PROPONENT.
UH, IF THE DEVELOPER IS HERE, YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO RESPOND.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, IF THE DEVELOPER IS STILL HERE, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO RESPOND.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M A PRINCIPAL WITH THE PLANETS DESIGN GROUP.
UH, ME AND MY TEAM HANDLED THE CIVIL ENGINEERING FOR THIS ICEBERG PROJECT.
UM, I ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES, SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO GET THROUGH THIS QUICKLY, BUT I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO TRAFFIC DRAINAGE AND TALK TO THE PROCESS ON HOW WE GOT HERE.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, UH, THE DEVELOPERS SELECTED US, BUT PROCESS
[01:25:01]
IS THAT PROCESS PROVIDES A PLAN WITH VERY SPECIFIC, DETAILED AND ENGINEERING THAT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED TO BE APPROVED, APPROVED AS PART OF THE PROCESS RATHER THAN A STRAIGHT REZONING, WHICH DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY OF THAT.UH, PART OF THIS MIDDLE INCLUDED A DRAINAGE STUDY.
I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE PARISH.
IT WAS APPROVED BY THE PARISH, UH, AS PART OF THE PROCESS THE WE STARTED, UM, WE EVALUATED THE SITE, UH, AND THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE SITE AND THE DRAINAGE PROBLEM, UH, THAT KEEPS COMING UP.
IT'S ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
IT'S NOT ON THE RONALD SCHOOL PROPERTY.
IT'S ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
IT'S SEVERELY SILTED IN AND OVERGROWN AND NOT MAINTAINED.
AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SURPRISE.
IT DOESN'T CONVEY STORM WATER PROPERLY.
UM, WE IDENTIFIED THE CONCERN, UH, ENGINEERED SOLUTION THAT WE CAME UP WITH WAS TO CAPTURE THE STORM WATER ON THE TWO ACRE SITE, UH, WHERE WE CAN CONTROL IT AND ROUTE THAT WATER AND UNDERGROUND THROUGH INLETS AND PIPES AND GET IT TO JEFFERSON HIGHWAY WHERE THERE'S A 24 INCH PIPE CROSSING THE ROAD AND AN ADDITIONAL 18 INCH PIPE CROSSING THE ROAD OUT DIRECTLY ON THIS PROPERTY FRONTAGE WITH MORE CAPACITY THAN NECESSARY.
SO THAT WAS THE PROPOSED SOLUTION THAT WE CAME UP WITH, UH, BEFORE THE PROJECT WAS EVEN SUBMITTED.
UH, DRAINAGE WAS A FOCUS OF THE DESIGN WHEN WE MET, UH, FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, WHERE WE RECEIVED A UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
THERE WERE, UH, SOME RESIDENTS THERE THAT EXPRESSED CONCERNS WITH DRAINAGE.
UH, WE LISTENED, WE MET AFTER THE MEETING WITH ALL OF THEM THAT WERE AVAILABLE RIGHT OUTSIDE THIS ROOM, RIGHT THERE ON THE PATIO.
UM, AND WE HAD A GOOD 15, 30 MINUTE TALK ABOUT THE CONCERNS.
UH, THEY'VE ALWAYS HAD CONCERNS.
WE TALKED THROUGH, UH, SOLUTIONS, THE DEVELOPER COMMITTED AT THAT TIME AND IS STILL OPEN TO, UH, IMPROVING THE DRAINAGE ON THEIR PROPERTY, ADDRESSING THIS EXISTING ISSUE.
CAN'T FIX IT COMPLETELY WITHIN THE TWO ACRES OF THE RONALD'S PROPERTY.
AND WE ARE DOING THAT THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY, BUT HE'LL NEED COOPERATION FROM THE NEIGHBORS TO GET ONTO THEIR PROPERTY, TO FIX THEIR EXISTING DRAINAGE ISSUE.
UM, AFTER THAT, WE HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, A VOLUNTEER NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.
I WOULD, UH, ESTIMATE ROUGHLY 30 PEOPLE WERE THERE.
UM, THE TONE SEEMED TO CHANGE AT THAT MEETING.
UM, THE GENTLEMAN THAT CLAIMED MISREPRESENTATION, HE DID THE SAME AT THAT MEETING JUST WITH A MUCH MORE AGGRESSIVE TONE.
AND IT BECAME OBVIOUS TO ME AT THAT TIME THAT RATHER THAN TALKING ABOUT SOLUTIONS TO THIS EXISTING DRAINAGE PROBLEM, IT WAS, UH, MANY OF THE, MANY OF THE FOLKS WERE USING THAT DRAINAGE NARRATIVE.
UM, AS A POCKET, UH, THERE WAS, THERE WAS NO REAL DISCUSSION, SIR.
I GAVE YOU, I GAVE YOU 30 MINUTES.
I MEAN, 30 SECONDS PAST YOUR TIME.
UH, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO FINISH YOUR COMMENTS? I'LL GIVE YOU 30 MORE SECONDS.
IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SAY.
UM, SO I'LL TOUCH ON TRAFFIC AND AGAIN, I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT EXISTING SCHOOL, UH, GENERATED MUCH MORE TRAFFIC THAN THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
SO THE EXISTING TWO ACRES IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS A TRAFFIC IMPACT, AND IT HAS A DRAIN IMPACT TODAY.
THIS PROPOSED PROJECT IMPROVED BOTH OF THOSE SITUATIONS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND I'M SORRY FOR GOING OVER MY TIME.
COUNSEL MEMBERS, ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK COUNCIL MEMBER ADAMS, OR DO YOU WANT TO GO LAST AFTER EVERYBODY ELSE SPEAKS? IT'S UP TO YOU? I DIDN'T GO LAST.
ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS? I HAVE ANY COMMENTS.
WELL, YOU'LL BE F UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BANKS.
I KEEP HEARING ABOUT, UM, THE HIGH POWERED LOBBYISTS WHO WAS THE LOBBYIST.
CAUSE I DIDN'T, I NEVER MET THEM.
I'VE NEVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MY PALM TO BE GREASED OR ANYTHING.
CAN, CAN A LOBBYIST PLEASE COME FORWARD.
SO VERY KIND OF YOU, ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS WITH ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER ADAMS, WHITE.
I JUST LIKE TO THANK ALL THE PUBLIC FOR COMING OUT AND LETTING THEIR VOICE BE HEARD.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY, UM, IT'S IRONIC THAT WE HERE, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSING, YOU KNOW, MILLION DOLLAR HOMES AND WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE BUILT, UH, CONSTRUCTED, UH, DEVELOPED IN A CERTAIN AREA.
I WOULD TELL YOU, UM, IN NORTH BATON ROUGE, THIS IS A PROBLEM WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE.
SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE ANY DEVELOPER.
[01:30:01]
LOOKING TO DEVELOP MILLION DOLLAR HOMES IN NORTH BATON ROUGE, PLEASE CONTACT MYSELF OR MY COLLEAGUES.COUNCIL MEMBER ADAMS, LIKE A WHITE ADAMS, WHITE, WHITE ADAMS IS FINE.
AFTER EVERYTHING THAT I PUT MY HUSBAND THROUGH THE PAST SIX WEEKS, WE SHOULD PROBABLY ACKNOWLEDGE JOHNNY ADAMS AND HIS SACRIFICE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SACRIFICE, MR. ADAMS. UM, I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR YOUR, YOUR PATIENCE AND YOUR ATTENTION.
UM, TONIGHT, THIS HAS BEEN, UM, AS YOU HAVE SEEN A PRETTY INTENSE SIX WEEKS, UM, I THINK I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WALK ALL OF Y'ALL THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT, THAT I WENT THROUGH.
UM, MY CONCERN, UM, WAS TO, TO, TO FIND, YOU KNOW, THE WISE PLACE, UM, TO, TO, YOU KNOW, CUT OUT, UM, OR TO, TO SET ASIDE ALL THE VOICES AND REALLY JUST LOOK AT THE PROJECT ON ITS OWN.
UM, THE PROJECT BY ITSELF ON ITS OWN.
I AM NOT OPPOSED TO, UM, THE PROJECT WHERE IT IS PLACED, UM, IN THIS, THIS AREA WITH LARGE LOTS HOUSES, SETBACK, UM, A REAL COMMITMENT, A HEALTHY AREA WITH A COMMITMENT TO AWAN.
UM, IT'S, IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST NOT THE RIGHT FIT.
SO, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE DENY, UM, THIS APPLICATION, MR. MAYOR PRO TEM.
IS THERE A SECOND? THERE'S A SECOND MOVED BY WHITE ADAMS, SECOND BY HUDSON, UH, TO DENY, UH, THIS PROJECT, UH, I SEEMED AS IF THOUGH I SAW SOMEONE'S HANDS ARE RAISED TO SPEAK, IS THAT TO COUNCIL MEMBER BANKS FOR CLARIFICATION.
I KNOW THAT THIS WAS APPROVED, UM, NINE.
OH, AND I BELIEVE IT REQUIRES EIGHT VOTES.
AND EXCUSE ME FOR CLARIFICATION, MS. WHITE ADAMS, THAT NEEDS TO BE A MOTION TO DELETE THE ITEM.
SO IF THAT'S YOUR MOTION, YES.
IS THAT YOUR SECOND MOTION TO DELETE THE ITEM BY WHITE AM SECONDED BY HUDSON COUNCIL MEMBER DONE.
WE VOTED ON THE MACHINES PLEASE.
UH, COUNCIL MEMBER AMAROSA, YOUR MACHINE'S NOT WORKING AND NEED IS MIND, BUT A ROLL CALL, VOTE, ROLL CALL.
UH, ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS? IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THE MOTION? NO.
MOTION, UH, IS DELETED, HUH? YEAH, HE, HE CAN, YOU CAN REQUEST A ROLL CALL, BUT THERE'S NO OPERA OPPOSITION TO HER MOTION.
IS, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? ANYONE OPPOSE MS. WHITE ADAM'S MOTION TO DELETE THE ITEM.
[Items 2 & 3]
TWO, PA FOUR DASH 21 TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN FROM AGRICULTURE, RURAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PRIDE BAY WOOD ROAD, EAST OF RALEIGH ROAD, COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE, NO MOTION TO APPROVE.SIX OLDEST ITEM REQUIRES A VOLTAGE AS A PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM TWO? UH, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE TWO AND THREE TOGETHER.
ITEM THREE, CASE 10 DASH 21 ONE SIX FOUR SIX FIVE PRIDE BAY WITH ROAD TO REZONE FROM RURAL.
IT'S A LIGHT COMMERCIAL ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PRIVATE BAY WOOD ROAD, EAST OF RALEIGH ROAD, COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE, NO COMMISSION ACTION.
ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS TWO AND THREE SHOWING NONE, UH, COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTION TO APPROVE BY NO SECONDED BY THE CHAIR.
[4. 21-00363 Case 7-21 T1340 (1300-1400) O’Neal Lane]
FOUR K SEVEN DASH TWO ONEANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM FOR ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM FOUR, SHOWING NON COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTION TO APPROVE AMAROSA SECONDED BY HUDSON MOTION CARRIES ITEM FIVE
[5. 21-00364 Case 8-21 9945 Airline Highway, Suite C]
NINE, NINE FOUR FIVE AIRLINE HIGHWAY, SUITE C TO REZONE FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO COMMERCIAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE BAR AND LOUNGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AIRLINE HIGHWAY NORTH OF GWEN ONE ADELE DRIVE COUNCIL DISTRICT 11 ADAMS MOTION TO APPROVE SIX SOLD BY THE COMMISSION.UH, ANYONE HAD TO SPEAK ON ITEM FIVE SHOWING NONE BACK TO COUNCIL.
MOTION TO APPROVE BY ADAMS. SECOND BY ROCCA MOTION CARRIES SIX CASE
[6. 21-00365 Case 9-21 17487 Florida Boulevard]
NINE DASH TWO ONE ONE SEVEN 47 FLORIDA BOULEVARD TO REZONE FROM RURAL TO LIGHT COMMERCIAL AND PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FLORIDA BOULEVARD, WEST OF RIVERSIDE[01:35:01]
PARK COUNCIL, DISTRICT FOUR, A MOAT COMMISSIONED ACTION MOTION TO APPROVE SIX ZERO.ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM SIX, ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM SIX BACK.
NOW WE DO HAVE ONE EMAIL COMMENT.
I CAN'T REMEMBER IF I HAVE AN EMAIL COMMENT ON ITEM SIX FROM FRANCIS CRAIG MOKE.
I WAS LOOKING AT COUNCILMAN MOKE AND THEN I, I WAS READING MY NOTES.
UH, WE CRAIG AND BONNIE MOATS ARE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING HOME AND LANDS AND ARE IN FAVOR OF THE ZONING CHANGE.
WE WISH THERE WAS SOMETHING MORE GRANULAR AND SPECIFIC AVAILABLE SUCH AS SPOT ZONING OR GRANDFATHERING AVAILABLE, BUT THIS IS AN ACCEPTABLE COMPROMISE.
THANK YOU FOR THE TIME AND HELP.
IT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM SIX, UH, BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBER MOTION TO APPROVE BY ROCKERS MO UH, COUNSELOR MO.
UM, ACCORDING, JUST LIKE THIS EMAIL THAT JUST CAME OUT RIGHT HERE AT COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I WANT TO TELL YOU, UH, I'VE WORKED WITH THIS CASE AND I DON'T HAVE A LOT IN MY AREA DUE TO THE SITUATION WITH THE CITY AND EVERYTHING ELSE, BUT, UH, I WANT TO COMMEND THIS GENTLEMEN, THE NEIGHBORS AROUND THE AREA.
AND OF COURSE OUR COMMISSION, UH, IT STARTED OFF AS A LOT HIGHER AND DIFFERENT THINGS COULD HAVE BEEN PUT IN THAT AREA.
BUT THE BUSINESS OWNER WORKED WITH EVERYONE IN, IN CHANGING WHAT HE WANTED TO AND SO ON.
AND SO I JUST WANTED TO COME IN AND EVERYBODY FOR THE WORK THEY DID TO GET THIS DONE AND THE BUSINESS OWNER FOR WORKING WITH THE CITY TO GET THIS DONE.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY WHO MADE THE MOTION TO APPROVE A ROCKER SECONDED BY MOROSA.
UM, MOTION CARRIES ITEM NUMBER SEVEN
[7. 21-00366 HL-1-21 1344 Terrace Avenue]
H L ONE DASH 2100 1,344 TERRACE AVENUE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TERRACE AVENUE, COUNCIL DISTRICT 10 COLEMAN STAFF CERTIFIES THAT THE REQUEST MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR THE DESIGNATION AS A LO LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK, UH, COUNCIL MEMBERS.IT DOESN'T SAY ON YOUR AGENDA, BUT THE COMMISSION ACTION WAS TO APPROVE THIS ITEM.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON NUMBER SEVEN, ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON NUMBER SEVEN, BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBERS, MOTION TO APPROVAL BY COLEMAN, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK JUST TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS THE NEW ARC, UH, BAPTIST CHURCH HERE PAST THE DEVIN, RIGHT? BUT A LOT OF WORK HAVE GONE INTO THIS, UH, BRITTANY ZENO.
AND SO JUST WANT TO COMMEND HER SHE'S WITH THE OLD SOUTH BATON ROUGE, UH, COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION THEY ARE IN.
SO THIS WILL BE A PART OF THE, AN ACTIVITY THAT WILL BE, UH, COMING UP, UH, IN JUNE, JUNE 10TH AND THE OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND A DAY OF GOOD STUFF WILL BE GOING ON.
SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT THIS BE ACCEPTED, APPROVED ALL OF THAT MOTION BY COLEMAN SECOND BY DONE MOTION CARRIES ITEM
[8. 21-00367 HL-2-21 1565 Curtis Street]
NUMBER EIGHT, EIGHT OH TWO DASH TWO ONE ONE FIVE SIX FIVE CURTIS STREET, PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CURTIS STREET, WEST OF LINCOLN STREET, COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO BANKS MOTION TO APPROVE OUR COMMISSION SIX OH COUNCIL, A PUBLIC HEARING ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON HIS ITEM BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBERS, MOTION TO APPROVE BY BANKS OF SECONDED BY, UH, ROCCO COUNCIL MEMBER HUDSON.I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF RYAN MAYBE COULD COME AND WALK US THROUGH THE PROCESS FOR, FOR THIS.
UM, I NOTICED IT'S NOT IN A, UH, HISTORIC DISTRICT, SO I JUST FOUND IT INTERESTING.
I, IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING I LOOK AT DOING IN MY DISTRICT.
SO HOW DOES ONE GO ABOUT CREATING ONE OF THESE LANDMARKS AND THE COUNCIL BE AN APPLICANT? THEY APPLIED FOR A LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK AND THEY FILLED OUT AN APPLICATION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICE AND WE PREPARED A STAFF REPORT OF THE FINDINGS SUBMITTED IT, AND IT WAS HEARD BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
AND THEN IT GOES THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ULTIMATELY TO THE COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
BUT IT'S BASED ON EITHER THE ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AND OR THE CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
SO, UM, WE WERE THRILLED TO GET MORE OF THESE, UH, I THINK IT'S A REALLY GOOD PROGRAM AND WE ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO APPLY.
SO QUESTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER MO HOW LONG DOES THIS PROCESS USUALLY TAKE? SO TO GET TO THROUGH THOSE THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS EACH MONTH, IT'S, IT'S APPROXIMATELY, UH, A FOUR MONTH PROCESS AND IT CAN BE EXPEDITED IF THE, UH, IF THE DATES ALIGN, BUT, UM, WE HAVE STAFF IN OUR OFFICE THAT THAT HELPS APPLICANTS ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GLAD TO ASSIST IN ANY WAY WE CAN
[01:40:01]
COUNCIL MEMBER BANKS.UM, THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION IS IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.
UH, WE HAVE QUITE A FEW CHURCHES OF EACH OF DENOMINATION IN THE SCOTLAND MILL COMMUNITY THAT OVER ARE OVER A HUNDRED YEARS OLD.
AND, UM, SO THIS IS SOMETHING AS, UH, RYAN SAID THAT ISN'T USED MUCH, BUT YOU DO NEED TO BE EXTREMELY, UM, CAREFUL IN GETTING THIS DESIGNATION BECAUSE ONCE YOU GET IT, YOU CAN'T JUST CHANGE THE, THE, THE NEW WINDOWS.
YOU HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A PROCESS BECAUSE WHAT YOU'VE APPROVED MEANS IT SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AS IT IS.
SO, UM, IT'S A GREAT THING TO HAVE, BUT IT'S JUST, UH, THERE'S UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I RECALL I ALWAYS REQUIRE IS THAT THE OWNER OR THE BOARD, OR SOMEBODY SIGNS IT, BECAUSE IF, FOR PROSPERITY, WHERE HE'S AT, IF SOME YEARS LATER THE CONGREGATION OR WHATEVER CHANGES, AND THEY DON'T KNOW, IT COULD BE IT'S, UH, IT'S A VIOLATION.
SO, UM, IN, IN DOING SO JUST, YOU KNOW, COUNT THE COSTS IN DOING SO, RIGHT.
RYAN, YOU WANTED TO COMMENT FURTHER ON THAT.
WE, UH, WE ENCOURAGE THE, THE APPLICANTS, UH, TO, TO BRING IN THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN, UH, SEEK OUT THE, THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, UM, TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE THERE TO ASSIST, UH, WE TRY TO MAKE IT AS EASY AND ACCOMMODATING AS POSSIBLE, BUT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ON ANY EXTERIOR CHANGES AFTER THIS LOCAL DESIGNATION WOULD POTENTIALLY REQUIRE A, UH, CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
AND, UM, THAT SIMPLY MEANS, UH, FALLING IN AN APPLICATION.
THEY'RE USUALLY A FREE, FREE OF A COST IF DON PRIOR AND NOT AFTER THE FACT, UM, WE WE'VE DONE THAT IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE THINGS EASIER.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE WALKED THEM THROUGH THE PROCESS AND, AND HELP THEM PRESENT THEIR CASE FOR ANY APPROPRIATE EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO THIS PROPERTY MOVING FORWARD.
UH, THERE'S A MOTION TO APPROVE BY BANK SECONDED BY OMAROSA MOTION CARRIES NUMBER NINE
[9. 21-00368 HL-3-21 502 North Boulevard]
EIGHT THREE DASH TWO ONE FIVE OH TWO NORTH BOULEVARD PROPOSED AS A NATION OF LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF NORTH BOULEVARD, EAST OF ST.CHARLES STREET, UH, COUNCIL DISTRICT 10 MOTION TO APPROVE BY THE COMMISSION, UH, SIX TO ZERO PUBLIC HEARING ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBERS MOVED BY COLEMAN SECONDED BY NO MOTION CARRIES COUNCIL MEMBER,
[1. 21-00211 ISPUD-4-21 Equestrian Court Residential Development (Part 2 of 2)]
WHITE ADAMS. WE NEED TO RECONSIDER ITEM ONE INSTEAD OF DELETING IT.SO A MOTION TO DENY BY A COUNCIL MEMBER, WHITE ADAMS SECONDED BY HUSBAND.
MOST OF THE RE MOTION TO RECONSIDER FIRST BY COUNCIL MEMBER, DON.
SECOND ABOUT HUSSON NOW MOTION TO NINE BY WHITE ADAM SECONDED BY HER SON.
UH, NO OPPOSITION MOTION CARES A MOTION TO ADJOURN BY OMAROSA, SECONDED BY EVERYONE.
UH, HAVE A GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AS ALWAYS THE ONE THING RYAN AND HIS TEAM FOR BEING HERE WITH US TODAY, WE SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOU AND ALL THE WORK YOU ALL DO HAVE A GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.