Email correspondence

Had a nice back and forth with a citizen regarding my views on Residence D Zoning. I share because folks deserve to know what I think about any and all issues relating to the Village. Here's our exchange (newest email first, name removed to protect the innocent).

Cortney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for the feedback. I live just feet from both Jordan Park (beautiful from the front, large and ungainly from the back)and the new Condos proposed for Madisonville Road. And I've thought a lot about this thorny, contentious issue. Your views are helpful though - I appreciate you taking the time to write.I think rezoning so condos can be built is the right thing. I think rezoning so multi-use buildings can be built is the right thing. For me it comes down to the balance between "Income" = new development = tax base, and "Cost" = living in the shadow of buildings too tall for their surroundings = quality of life issues for some (in the spirit of full disclosure, me included). Different folks will find different balances here.I think run-down apartments are unacceptable too. I believe, though that apartment dwellers are vital for the Village. So I would encourage quality renters with a carrot and stick approach for Landlords. Carrot: reduce the unfair tax burden on landlords vs what's true in other Villages. As I understand it, 2-4 Family owners are hurt disproportionately by the existing MM Tax Code. Extra income will encourage upkeep. Stick: fine for buildings that are run down via the Mayor's Court. Not sure of legality, but maybe we could garnish Rents to make the landlord feel the pressure. I'm not a lawyer, nor am I a CPA, so this is only an idea at this point.I do know if most residents support Residence D and vote for it in November, it's a "go". And redevelopment will happen to the West of my neighborhood and to the North. And maybe my concerns will melt away as pretty buildings replace nice and not-so-nice 4 families. We shall see!I can't say I have all the answers. This is just how I'm thinking about it. Thanks again and would love to chat further. Cortney
=====================
Thanks for responding to my email. I didn't know that building was in Mariemont already. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I find the condos built on Miami beautiful and it makes our community stand out from others. I do believe we should leave this up to the professionals who are risking their own money to build these. I went to a yard sale in one of those four families this past spring. It was falling apart. My biggest fear is that they will deteriorate more and eventually become section 8 housing. I would rather see a solid building 5 feet higher than you prefer than to see section 8 in our neighborhood. Have you given that any thought? Wouldn't that become a bigger eye sore?
=====================
Thanks for the reply. The following link takes you to the "Bugget Savings Ideas" Comments. If you have cost saving ideas, I'd love it if you'd add them here: http://scheeser.blogspot.com/2009/08/enroll-experts-to-help-us-close-budget.html The other link takes you to the general blog I write, where you found that architectural picture/drawing.Thanks for the interest in Building/Zoning. It's an area I've spent a lot of time and energy on. To answer your first question, I'm a "closet" architect and have some residential and commercial construction experience from years ago. Today, my girls' new playhouse is my latest attempt at being an architect and builder!The picture you see is actually on Murray Avenue in the MM Historic District (near the European Car Repair Shop). It was built in the mid 20's, and I shared it with Council as an alternative to the 45' requirement Rick Griewe said was mandatory for 3 storeys. 45' was set by Council for "Residence D" which you'll see on the ballot in November.I believe 40' is a better height max (-5 ft), as it balances the need for 3 storeys + doesn't tower over the existing neighborhood. I would enthusiastically support Residence D if 40' was the standard.The roof style is called a "Parapet Roof", and its used all the time in commercial buildings. I work downtown, and every building I see from my window has a parapet roof. In my limited experience, this roof lasts a long time and is a quality option. We can both point out some ugly, inappropriate flat roof examples, but I think a Parapet is historically appropriate, and of super quality for our Village. And it solves the height concern.As for pictures, I've seen hardcopy drawings from Rick Griewe which are great. Very attractive. Just a bit too tall....Thanks again for the interest. I'd love to hear your thoughts.Cortneyw983-0463h271-4513m479-221-1752
=====================
I'm not really sure which email to send this response too. I have a few questions for you. Are you an Architect? The picture you have on one of your emails looks like an apartment you would see in Anderson, Montgomery. I was wondering if you had a picture from the village as to what they want the apartments/condos to look like? Anything I have heard from a contractor/builder says a flat roof is a cheap roof, and usually will have water issues. Please respond.