Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Standard-Examiner: 25th Street Business Association Wants Height Limits Raised

We urge the Council to reject this proposal outright, and to refrain from again revisiting this already-decided issue, unless and until some tangible proposed project comes along

The Standard-Examiner reports this morning that anti-historic preservation forces are again on the move to compromise the historical integrity of Historic 25th Street, with a new proposal, spearhead by hyper-activist 25th Street Business Association President Steve Conlin, to increase building height limits on Historic 25th Street across the board from 45 feet to 55 feet:
25th Street Business Association wants height limits raised
Although we'd assumed that the prospect of raising height limits across all of the Historic 25th Street District had been rejected once and for all by the Council in October of 2008, Mr. Conlin makes it quite clear that he's ready to waste the time of the Council and the public, by girding for battle on this issue once again:
"I don't think we are going to get this passed without a big fight. But I think it's a fight the 25th Street Business Association is willing to take on," said Steve Conlin, president of the association.
Kudos to Councilman Stephens for his savvy take on the issue:
City Councilman Doug Stephens questioned whether it is prudent to change the height ordinance, as there is no building project on the table for 25th Street that requires the height extension.
"We need to protect the historical elements of 25th Street and provide a method that 25th Street can attract business into that area and be successful," he said. "If there is no project coming forward, is it necessary for the council to be reviewing this ordinance?"
Councilman Stephens hits the nail on the head. Absent some new proposed project which might justify Council consideration of an individual zoning variance tied to a specific project, it would be pure folly for the City Council to open up what earlier proved to be a highly contentious can of worms once again.

We therefore urge the Council to reject this proposal outright, and to refrain from again revisiting this already-decided issue, unless and until some actual property developer is willing to put something tangible on the table.

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved