Zoning Meeting 3.21.2017

Tuesday, March 21, 2017 - 7:00pm

2033 Tulip St
Proposal for building a single family home with accessory offstreet parking.

2627 E Norris St
Proposal for (1) non-accessory offstreet open air parking spot.

This meeting will take place at the Fishtown Rec Center, 1202 E Montgomery Ave. All residents and business owners in Fishtown are eligible to vote. Please bring proof of residence or business ownership in the form of a driver’s license or a photo id and a lease, utility bill, or recent piece of mail addressed to your home or business.

Comments

Avocado's Number's picture







RAMiller's picture

Impressive effort AND followthru mr avacodo.

upandup19125's picture

It's so frustrating that volunteers even have to spend time hearing cases like the second one for creating a parking spot where it's clearly not allowed. I'm surprised no one throws tomatoes at the applicants in the meetings.

roman's picture

I hope people come out and vote overwhelmingly no to both presentations. They both create a hardship to the community.

stephen's picture

i think this might be the first one where i vote and leave without listening.

maxtan86's picture

complain about projects that increase parking pressure

complain about projects that decrease parking pressure

roman's picture

maxtan86 wrote:
complain about projects that increase parking pressure

complain about projects that decrease parking pressure

I heard that too when I played "I Am the Walrus" backwards.

stephen's picture

maybe i'm looking at the wrong properties? it looks like neither property can have a driveway without killing a street spot.

bonzombiekitty's picture

maxtan86 wrote:
complain about projects that increase parking pressure

complain about projects that decrease parking pressure

What recent projects decreased parking pressure? These two certainly don't. They take away (at least) one public street parking for private use. Considering that private spot is not going to always be in use, unless more than one vehicle is consistently in those spots, you are most likely looking at a net loss in parking for everyone else.

maxtan86's picture

Or they can build a new house on the lot and add 2-3 more cars to the block. How's that for a net loss?

This is America, not the USSR - let people do what they want to do with their property.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

ExUnit4's picture

2627 E Norris has been a paved over empty lot foryears already. There's at least 2 cars parked on it 24/7 So the arguement it's going to save street spots is not accurate.
And, anyone who lives on the block, or within 200 feet of same can tell you 99% of the time there's also another car parked in front of same blocking them in. Appears the owners of the lot may now want to make the side yard lot a legal non accessory spot.

roman's picture

maxtan86 wrote:
...This is America, not the USSR - let people do what they want to do with their property.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Laissez-faire would have a detrimental effect on this community. Even Russia knows that.

roman's picture

Split decision: Norris Street "yes, Tulip Street "no."

Avocado's Number's picture

roman wrote:
Split decision: Norris Street "yes, Tulip Street "no."

roman's picture

C'est la vie

roman's picture

It is upon reflection that if there was to be a vote of compromise between the two projects the Tulip St project would get my vote. This man in comparison to the Norris St project had something to offer for the betterment of the community in the form of new personal permanent home. The Norris St project had nothing to offer except singular selfish want and an air of just wanting to win and complete disregard for any reasonable opposing issue.
This meeting was the first time that i left with a feeling of repulsion toward an applicant and their friends. Still I personally acknowledged their victory and individually congratulated the representative and the applicant.
The vote count for both applicants, as I understood it, suggest that some of the same people who voted down Tulip St voted for Norris St.
Here also is a time when someone can say that I had a clear measure of dominance in argument. Just don't lie about the topics because they were all based in the written zoning framework as to why a variance should be denied.