Kenner Manor Association

Vote Result & Letter to Council

Aug 22, 2006

The votes received from the residents on Kenner and Woodmont on the issue of the condo building rezoning came back pretty close: 54% for the project. As such, I have crafted and sent an email to the council in advance of tonight?’s final vote on the project in which I tried to fairly convey the arguments of both sides and report the results of the vote. The email that I sent out is included below. I hope that everyone feels that they were given adequate opportunities to voice their opinions on this matter. If not, you are still welcome to send your own emails out to the council.

Thanks,

Will

To the Metro Council,

I am writing to you as the President of the Kenner Manor Association regarding BILL NO. BL2005-908 and BILL NO. BL2005-909. These bills represent the rezoning of 8 properties, 5 on Woodmont Blvd. to a higher density zoning that would accommodate the developers intent to build a 34 unit, high end condominium building on Woodmont Blvd. and 3 on Kenner into a PUD that would rezone them as single-family.

The developer began the process of lobbying the neighborhood for support of this project back around the middle of last year. We have since held three open neighborhood meetings to discuss the merits of the project as well as two, smaller focus-group type meetings with those property owners closest to the development. During each of these meetings, the developer has taken note of the concerns of the neighborhood and has responded with how the concerns may be addressed. The project?’s proposed style has been changed in response, the total of number of units and floors were reduced (from 38 units to 34 and from three sections of 11, 7, and 4 stories to three sections of 10, 6, and 3 stories), and the neighborhood has a list of conditions that the developer has agreed to adhere to going forward (attached). This is a developer who lives in close proximity to this development and has been very accommodating in hearing the opinions of the surrounding neighbors both for and against the project.

Councilman Summers promised the neighborhood early on that there would be public meetings to discuss the project at length, and that before the zoning bill came up for a final vote, there would be a balloting process, the result of which would determine whether he would vote for or against the rezoning. When the bill came before the Planning Commission in November, the Councilman recommended that it not be passed in order to give the neighborhood more time for negotiation with the developer as well as for the balloting process. Councilman Summers has remained true to his word and sent out ballots a few weeks ago to an ?‘affected area?’ that he and I worked together to determine (ballots were sent to residences on Woodmont Blvd. and Kenner Ave up to Woodmont Circle ?– about 150 ballots). The close result of the vote represents clearly that, as Councilman Summers has said, there are valid reasons for supporting this project, and valid reasons for opposing it. 54% of the responding votes were for the proposal. The most prevalent reasons for voting for the project included the developer?’s willingness to preserve the first three homes on Kenner as single-family, renovate them and sell them to individual buyers, the attractive, high-end nature of the development, the alternative project being the 8 properties developed as duplex units (up to 22 units), where the neighborhood would have no say on design, landscaping, set-back, driveway/cul-de-sac cut-throughs, etc. and the fact that the owner of the property is willing to set aside $50,000 into a trust to be used for neighborhood improvements. The most prevalent reasons for opposing the project center mainly on the size of the building and the fact that the ten story and 6 story sections would be out of scope with the residential properties surrounding the development, the potential damage to the nearby homes that any excavation/blasting may cause, and the overall increase in density.

I wish I could report a larger majority either for or against, but as it stands, my recommendation as President of the Neighborhood is to report the results as is ?– more votes in favor than against, and leave it to the wisdom of the Council to judge the project on its merits and determine whether the margin of support in the neighborhood represents either a mandate for moving forward or indicates a need for more discussion.