Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

wederservebetter OP t1_ivg1lvi wrote

Reply to comment by ShartsvilleDestroyer in Ballot, question 1: In general, I'm against rezoning for commercial, but does the property owner want it rezoned or is the city asking for it? by wederservebetter

My follow up would be: How close are the other residential properties to this, And how do those property owners feel about it?

Edit: I ask this because as a property owner myself, I know what it's like to fight and lose against city council issues like this. Most of them only care about how much money it will make the city, not about how much money the neighbors will lose on their investments.

Thank you for the replies. The neighbors are against it and therefore I will vote NO on Question 1

32

ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_ivg22p2 wrote

I'm not sure how close other residential properties are and I'm a terrible guesser at distances.

The residents of Galloway are very against this happening. They are the ones that got it on the ballot. Had they not pursued this option, the land would have been rezoned already and construction would have begun.

21

alfrred08 t1_ivjz8iw wrote

Residential properties are not adjacent to it. There is Sequiota to the east, quarry to the south, restaurant and church to the west, and photography shop to the north. I will vote yes on this. From what I've read, the developer had compromised on every metric possible including preserving existing "historic" structures, saving as many trees as possible, increasing green space by way more than minimum required by code, reducing the proposed building from 4 stories to 2 stories and much more.. he has done everything possible to work with the neighborhood but they seemingly can't be reasoned with. If this fails, he will likely sell and there's nothing stopping the next property owner from razing the site.

4

alfrred08 t1_ivk0q6s wrote

Here's a direct Copy/Paste "letter to the editor" article in SBJ:

Dear editor,

On Nov. 8, we as a city will be voting on whether or not a development in Galloway Village will be built.

I commend the community in Galloway Village for speaking their mind and advocating for meaningful improvements to their neighborhood. It was solely because of their action that 150 mature trees will be preserved with this [proposed] development. It is wholly due to their passion that four historic buildings will be saved from demolition. This development [plan] creates 75% more green space than is required entirely as a result of Galloway neighbors’ voices.

I equally applaud the developer for listening to neighborhood opinions and making significant changes based on their feedback. Valid concerns about traffic, pedestrian safety and stormwater management all contributed to significant changes to the original design of the project.

Will these accommodations satisfy everyone? Of course not. But in a pluralistic community with so many competing interests, it is unrealistic to please everyone. In this case, I think it’s fair to say that neither side got exactly what they wanted. Perfect. Compromise worked.

It’s also worth noting that there’s real risk when we fail to compromise. Today, this development [proposal] protects 150 mature trees and four historic buildings from demolition. These protections could be lost on Nov. 8.

One can only wonder what the corner of National and Sunshine might look like today had compromise allowed a bedand-breakfast to be built in 2016. Today, in Galloway, we have a bird in our hand.

I am voting “yes” on Question 1 because I believe the necessary and extensive outreach to neighbors and stakeholders was successful, resulting in a design enhancing the quality of place in Galloway.

0

Elios000 t1_ivg4j68 wrote

the rezoning would extend down that side of National and Sunshine and butt up right to people back yards like to does the other way from the intersection down sunshine

google maps link https://goo.gl/maps/Z3WrDZ65gBs7enyY8

−15

GeneralTonic t1_ivg7yrc wrote

Question 1 is about Galloway, not National and Campbell.

10

bendadian1 t1_ivgpmzd wrote

Galloway village has a lot of documentation about it on their site. I’m from the area and it’s a really bad idea. Given the current road conditions, lack of water draining, and 100 other reasons it will drastically effect the area and turn a quiet park onto a major intersection.

12

MacAttack2015 t1_ivg3o1h wrote

There's a church to the west and an incredibly fancy home/professional photography studio to the north. The quarry is to the south and Sequiota Park is to the east.

The property owner to the north with the photography studio was very outspoken in her opposition to the rezoning when City Council reviewed it, as was Galloway generally.

11

Always_0421 t1_ivkni9r wrote

If you drive through that area, it's PLASTERED with vote no yard signs in from of, I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say, probably half the houses

2

Elios000 t1_ivg3b2e wrote

about 5 feet to the closest one here the red box is the area to be rezoned it BUTTS RIGHT up to the homes https://i.imgur.com/qgwhA3N.png

−9

ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_ivg4tdh wrote

I think you've got this confused with the zoning concerns in the University Heights neighborhood. Question 1 on tomorrow's ballot pertains to the area in Galloway only.

5

Elios000 t1_ivg4xme wrote

huh they had signs up in the yards there for Question 1 as well

−5

ShartsvilleDestroyer t1_ivg53s3 wrote

The entire city is voting on this matter so they're showing support.

It makes sense that those residents would come out against the rezoning of Galloway in case they end up following the same path as the Galloway residents have.

13