-----Original Message-----
From: Patricia Sinclair
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:26 PM
To: Bobbie Walthall
Subject: city comm. comments Z-10-49-04

Re:  Regular Agenda Item 1 Z-10-49-04 as it relates to rezoning in Barker neighborhood from RS-2 to RS-5.

1.  Homeowners should receive individual notification of an intent to rezone property per city code unless it is a general revision of the zoning map. Such a general revision would cause all like properties to have the same rezoning.  This is not the case here.  All RS-2 properties in Barker or in the city are not being rezoned to RS-5, only selected ones of unspecified size.  Their shared attribute, apparently, is that they are less than 7,000 sq. ft.

I have not received formal notification by the city that my property is due to be rezoned.

2.  I have protested this rezoning on the basis that it creates a much smaller required lot and frontage than exists in many of these properties.  It does not attempt to create a zoning which reflects the actual size of the nonconforming lots.  My lot is very close to RS-2 requirements and much larger than RS-5.

3.  This rezoning would, as acknowledged by staff, create more infill within an established older neighborhood and allow it to be much more closely built than it is currently.

4.  Staff''s claims that inquiries about this rezoning have been answered are not accurate.  I have inquired for over one year about what would happen if my house were destroyed and I wanted to rebuild under the current zoning, RS-2, with it being non-conforming.  I received a partial oral answer from Linda Finger at the "presentation" open house for the new code.  I belatedly received an answer (different) from Sheila Stogsdill just prior to the PC meeting and too late for me to submit written comments for the meeting.

I also asked since last year about tables that were created by the planning dept. and placed on the city's website.  These tables showed all of the properties to be rezoned from RS-2 to RS-5 in Barker, but neglected to show the square footage of the property.  Therefore, there appeared to be no mathematical proof that these lots were of RS-5 size or even any idea of the average or typical lot size to be rezoned, or the number that were significantly smaller than RS-2 requires.

I requested these lot sizes over one year ago and again at the "presentation" open house held by planning for the new code.  This request was made to Linda Finger.  I also asked that the map use different colors as the two used were almost identical and that made it difficult to use.

I never received that information.  Some time later, I received an email from Sheila Stogsdill with what were said to be lot sizes on my block.  As I am quite familiar with my block, that is not what I had requested.  I had asked for all of the lot sizes to be rezoned in my neighborhood.  It seems that this information would be necessary in order to make a decision.  The information that was sent to me referenced the end of my street that adjoined Haskell.  Since my street does not adjoin Haskell and since some of the numbers did not look right, I believe that I was not even sent accurate data for my block.

5.  Planning staff also remarked to me that they thought my neighborhood had a lot of accessory dwellings already and I had to tell them that was not accurate. 

6.  The supposed presentation of the new city code and zoning maps was not a helpful meeting.  First, there was no presentation given.  There was no written summary of the changes.  There was no written timetable of the coming events or when written comments were due, which was earlier than usual due to a holiday.  There were only large zoning maps and a thick binder with the entire city code. Nobody had name tags and the consultant was not introduced.  When I attempted to ask a simple question of the consultant, Steven Chinn, prior to a later City Commission meeting, he declined to answer me and told me that I could read the entire code as others had done.

Please do not rezone the properties in Barker from RS-2 to RS-5 as it would not benefit our neighborhood as a whole and it is not legal to do so without individual notificication per city code.

Also, with regard to the proposed city code, if it allows for notification of rezoning through neighborhood organizations, I object.  Our neighborhood organization is defunct and does not meet and does not pass along information.  This is not a substitute for individual notification.

Patricia Sinclair