Council has blocked off a half-hour at tonight’s meeting (7-26) to begin some serious discussion on a totally revamped zoning ordinance for the city.
This is a critical issue and of great importance to all residents, whether they know it or not. I personally believe zoning can be a tool to help prevent deterioration of neighborhoods, spur development and ensure the best and highest use of available land and in general create a more viable and pleasant community.
I know not everyone thinks like that.
The re-do of the zoning ordinance has been planned and is being done in conjunction with the multiple-municipal comprehensive plan, although it is a separate project. As such, there has already been some limited public discussion about changes, notably to “up-zoning” several residential areas.
Currently we only have two residential categories: R-1 and R-2.
The R-1 district represents generally the area with the largest lots and newest developments. It is limited to single-family homes. The R-2 district is generally areas with smaller lots and allows for multi-family units.
I for one favor and I think there is consensus to creating additional R-1 districts (A-B etc. based on lot size) to bring several of the current R-2 neighborhoods into the single-family residence category. I believe this will tend to preserve several neighborhoods by making fewer rental units available and in a round-about way support home ownership. It is important to remember that the exhaustive study of county housing said strongly that additional lower-cost rental units are not needed in Oil City and in fact can be detrimental to the overall market.
Furthermore, it makes no sense to me why under our existing zoning categories we encourage transformation of single-family homes into two or more family rental units where the lots are the smallest and the parking issues often the greatest.
Currently we only have one industrial category and do not differentiate between heavy and light industry. The Industrial zones are located in a wide sweep along the river on the West End, East End, Siverly and downstream from Relief Street along Route 8. There is also an industrial zone along Oil Creek and extending along parts of Seneca Street and “inland” to Duncomb.
Much of what is zoned industrial on the southside has great potential for other uses and little industrial development potential. That needs to be changed. Furthermore, I think it would make sense to make the industrial zone in the West End light industrial to better reflect the adjoining property uses and what is actually there now.
I would like to see creation of a special “Waterfront” zoning category that would encourage residential development and recreational businesses, such as restaurants, etc. to best make use of the waterfronts. There needs to be a lot of thought given to what would be appropriate and how to use zoning to preserve viewscapes, etc.
The areas I would place in that “waterfront” zoning category include:
1) Between Route 62 and the river from Pumphouse Road to Veteran’s Bridge.
2) Everything on the river side of Front Street (perhaps North Street) from Petroleum Street to at least Blair Street and then extending on the river side of the old railroad right-of-way to the city line.
3. Colbert Avenue to the river out to the Industrial Park and then upstream of the Industrial Park to the end of Colbert and then all the remaining upstream property within the city.
Perhaps a “waterfront” area overlay for our downtown commercial districts would also be beneficial.
Obviously we need to take a look at the former hospital property, now zoned as residential office to see if the uses prescribed in that zoning category still fit.
Oil City does not have a lot of remaining undeveloped land, but for what we do have I think it would behoove us to explore zoning rules that provide for single-residence and townhouse condominium developments that are of growing popularity.
Council will have a lot to think about and the staff a lot of work as we develop a comprehensive zoning ordinance update. Our residents need to speak up and express their desires and concerns as well, and sooner rather than later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
John,
I have a few questions from what I read in today's paper and from the blog.
When rezoning will you "grand-father" in the folks who have duplexes and multi-family housing already in existence? If not, does council have any trepidation that the owners (mainly out-of-town) will just pull up stakes and leave more vacant properties? If you don't do one or the other will anything change?
The study you mentioned also says there are too many houses for the population of the city.
Not sure what you could or would want to do about the Dr. Offices by where the hospital used to be. They own those buildings, it is business, they pay taxes on both. So whats to be done?
I like the idea of opening the waterways to business, but is your idea for private business or some kind of city run entity?
Monumental task you set for yourself John, there could be allot of good that can come from it, or it could go bad very quickly.
Good luck.
Dan Robertson
Dan,
All existing uses would be grandfathered, which I believe is required under state law whenever there is a change in zoning. It is only fair.
My hope is we can bring up the value of everyone's property by bringing more neighborhoods into some category of single-family residence area, including rental properties.
The doctors’ offices -- the so-called Kleenex-box offices -- have been torn down. UPMC turned ownership of the Rowe Building property over to the city along with a 1/6th interest in the actual hospital property for the nominal fee of $1. The 1/6th interest was donated to the hospital some years ago; the remaining 5/6th is divvied up among Hasson heirs.
The Waterways zone I envision will require a lot of thought and careful drafting. I think recreational/tourism related businesses make sense as does a mix of residential development. I can picture it in my mind much more easily that I can figure out how to write all the details. I hope to look at some other cities that have done similar things, including Erie and the bay front.
John
There was some talk a few years ago, about zoning the marina to enable campsites and such. That seems to me to be a worthwhile endevour. With camping comes camping type needs, which would breed businesses. Also I personally think the marina is one of the most untapped resources we have here in Oil City, it would be great to see it turn into more than just a fishing boat access point.
Dan Robertson
Dan,
I believe the soon-to-be-completed Waterways Plan includes a recommendation for water-access primitive camping at the downriver end of the Marina. It also will likely include a proposal for hard RVs (motorhomes and trailers) in the area of the upper parking lot. At least both were outlined as a proposal in the draft.
I lived in a small river town along the Ohio for a while. The waterfront made the place a quaint and fun shopping and entertainment destination. As a new OC resident, I have been puzzled why the town has not taken full advantage of its waterfront area. The river, along with the view of the hills, is so beautiful. How much nicer would the 'Bean' be if there was a breezy patio at back overlooking the beautiful river and gazing out at those foggy morning hills. That entire area would be perfect for restaurants, shops and town homes. We were down to Foxburg the other day. They have done a great job of exploiting the beauty of their river front. Ours could be so much more. Your zoning plan as far as I understood it from the paper, sounds very sensible.
In general, I agree with your ideas, I would be careful however in encouraging the conversion of some of the beautiful victorians into more multiplexes. Typically, it doesn't enhance a neighborhood.
I would like to see the City focus on downtown development rather than doing anything up at the old hospital site. Upscale, loft housing downtown would be more beneficial.
Regarding the concern of someone "pulling up stakes and abandoning a rental property" - it would most likely be a dump then and probably isn't a real community asset anyway.
Good ideas John.
Robert,
The intent is to reduce the areas where homes can be converted to multi-family.
I understand the desire to convert some of the grand old Victorians and their suitability for conversion, but I think maintaining more of them as single-family residences will better preserve neighborhoods.
Having said that, I must admit that I can point to several converted Victorians that are among the best maintained dwellings on their block.
I understand the desire to convert some of the grand old Victorians and their suitability for conversion, but I think maintaining more of them as single-family residences will better preserve neighborhoods.
---
The question is whether you want them as single family homes or whether you want them abandoned. Those houses are expensive to maintain.
Anonymous,
Your point is well taken.
Part of the problem is the overabundance of housing units in the city. Additonal conversion of single-family properties to multi-family adds to that, driving down the value of the units converted. In turn, that means less rental income to maintain the converted units. And yes, that is a broad, theoretical generalization.
I think bringing in more areas into a single-family zoning district will overall be positive.
John,
We are on the same page then. I thought you wanted to open up some neighborhoods for multi-unit zoning. People are interested in them as single family residences still as two recent sales in O.C. would indicate. It doesn't always work out though, that's true.
We could stand to take down a huge amount of the existing housing stock and open up areas where homes are compacted and deteriorating.
It appears to be very bad, however O.C. isn't that big of a town and selective demolition could make a big difference.
You just need someone, like a Scott Hutchinson or a Mary Jo White to get behind a blight removal plan and assist in getting the funds.
I almost think there needs to be a forum called with all key players to hammer out a plan to address commercial and residential blight issues. Now there is just a lot of disjointed talk around it. The organization could come from the ORA, but they might need to conduct in a more broad manner, including other areas in the County.
People, especially young people, need a place to live. However O.C. would be wise to cut WAY back on their HUD approved housing and encourage more responsible residents to own homes that will contribute to the towns well-being.
I understand that in Cleveland they are demolitioning BLOCKS of inner-city foreclosed homes. Mainly because they are abandoned by banks but they also don't want the low-income or no-income residents coming back.
I'm not sure if Robert is new to the area or just hasn't been paying attention or just doesn't understand what others are saying. It has been abundantly clear that Councilman Bartlett doesn't think that we need more mult-unit housing. I don't think Mr. Robertson is saying that run down rentals are an asset to the community. It sounds like he's saying what happens when the slumlords walk away from the house and leaves the city with another abandoned, blighted property to have to tear down. I don't remember exactly who they took but some of the political big wigs took a ride around Oil City on the trolley not that long age. So they are very aware of the situation..BUT THERE IS NO MONEY TO TEAR DOWN THE BLIGHTED PROPERTIES. The state doesn't have any more money than the city does. To compare Cleveland with Oil City ridiculous. Cleveland is in Ohio and Cleveland's per capita is huge. There is a Blight Review Committee that is supposed to be doing something but it appears to be just another committee that sits on it duff and says there is no money to do anything. There is the Main Street initiative that has all these good intentions but it appears funding may also be cut for that. As far as HUD housing goes, if something is zoned that allows rentals I'm not sure if the city can go in and tell people you can rent your property but it can't be HUD. Maybe John knows the answer to that.
The issues with the city all depend on money. There is no easy answer or fix like a lot of people seem to think there is.
That's why I was glad to see the paper this morning. At least some council members are looking at ways to downsize and save money. I don't want anyone to lose their job but times are tough and sometimes unfortunately that must happen...one must be sacrificed for the sake of all.
"At least some council members are looking at ways to downsize and save money. I don't want anyone to lose their job but times are tough and sometimes unfortunately that must happen...one must be sacrificed for the sake of all."
This poster offers a lot of criticism but no suggestions. They are just pleased that someone might lose their job! Maybe their's could be eliminated and save their company some money.
TRUST me it doesn't hurt to put some public pressure on politicians to bring home some bacon and don't be so naiive to think there isn't ANY money out there. You are equally gullible if you don't think PGH and Philly are getting all kinds of dough that we could get a slice of.
I like the idea of a forum then developing a specific plan, going after funding and then addressing the problem. I do think the ORA could co-ordinate it. They are they only agency I know of with people PAID to do it.
John,
Not to stir the pot anymore than it needs, but what do you think about the idea that was brought up about eliminating municipalities?
Rep Thomas Caligrione thinks the 2,562 that we have are too many and should be eliminated in favor of county governments. According to him and some supporters it would save money and put more money where it needs to be.
Just wondering where you stand on it.
Dan Robertson
Regarding Mr. Robertson's question about eliminating municipalities, eventually some will be forced to combine. It's only a matter of time and most of the municipalities in this county face the same problems. The solutions to them usually do involve a county-wide approach. That shouldn't be eliminated as a viable option.
Wow, we are ranging pretty far and wide in this discussion.
First, to the poster who questioned what the Blight Committee is doing. The answer in short is a lot. It has put in place a process that does allow us to move more aggressively against the owners of blighted property, improves our legal standing and is searching for innovative ways to address our blight problems. It won't be fast and it won't be easy.
On the municipality issue, I think we must find ways to be more regional in our scope throughout Pennsylvania. States that have taken that approach -- even rust belt states -- are having more success. Coincidental? Maybe, but I can't help believe there might be a cause and effect.
Just a thought on the report it today's paper. Isn't it a little bit funny (or not funny at all, sad really) that they (council) decided to leave the more "controversial" stuff for the Monday meeting at 4:30 when most people will still be working...interesting to say the least.
Anonymous,
There are a couple of important points that need to be made regarding your comment.
First, last night was the first I saw the proposed changes suggested by another councilman. I was in no way prepared to make an informed, intelligent decision on the most important issues. I can't imagine other members of council would have been prepared either. That was one reason I did not want to continue the meeting. This way we at least get to read through them and think about what is being suggested.
Secondly, your point about the time of the meeting would be well taken if the "special meeting" opened at 4:30. The way we structured it, we will have our regular meeting beginning at 4:30 and once all of that is completed, we will reconvene the "special meeting."
I sincerely hope there is a huge turnout of interested citizens. A lot is at stake. I would suggest trying to be there by 5:30.
I would not be too quick to knock the HUD Section 8 housing. Those houses are inspected and must meet minimal quality upkeep standards. The cost of housing has been inflated so much and many worker's incomes have not kept up. Government help is necessary for many to maintain decent housing. The problem with the Section 8 program is that there are not enough units available to help everyone who needs it and there are not enough owners who are willing to keep property in the condition required to qualify.
Tom I'm guessing that you haven't been in too many HUD houses. I have seen first hand some HUD houses and their "minimal quality upkeep standards". Just FYI they only inspect these houses once a year (if that) and only bring them up to these, as you say, "minimal standards" at that time. Might I add it's not too hard to pass a HUD inspection.
I have been in many HUD houses. I have also been in slum houses that have no one inspecting them, even once a year. Believe me there is a big difference. The HUD inspection is very basic, heath & safety mostly, but it can be effective. Of course, the maintenance of standards still depends on the owner, the tenant and the willingness of the HUD authorities to enforce the rules.
John,
Imagine that you have a Victorian home for sale. If zoning eliminates potential buyers, your sale price will likely decline, or you may not be able to sell at all. That will also create a shortage of rental properties in the future possibly including moderate and high-end.
You referenced a study that indicates too many lower-cost rentals, and any more units would be detrimental. If true, such an oversupply is already detrimental by depressing rents and, therefore, underlying property values. That discourages additional investment, but eventually invites the slumlord.
Slumlords and condemned properties are an ugly part of a natural, necessary, corrective process that brings housing supply in line with a smaller population. Banning rentals through zoning will not “prevent deterioration of neighborhoods, spur development and ensure the best and highest use of available land and in general create a more viable and pleasant community.” You cannot zone your way to prosperity, John. The residential plan simply replaces a slumlord with a ne’er-do-well owner or a tax sale.
Publius
Tom, Do you realize that many HUD tenants are forced to fix the rental they live if it doesn't meet the standards? Slumlords most definitely own HUD housing! The tenants don't want to lose their housing so they will allow the slumlord to bully them into making the required improvements. HUD just makes it easier for someone to be a slumlord with the appearance that they are not, all the while pushing around the under privileged!
Here is something you should read. I hope you will share it with your colleagues on the council.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/09/05/how_to_shrink_a_city/?page=full
Thanks for the link to a very interesting article. I have passed it on to other members of council.
It might surprise you and others to know that some of the very things discussed in the article have been discussed by council and the administration. A key to any "shrinking" is getting the housing stock in line, and that means demolition. Unfortunately, that is an expensive undertaking. I think there is a desire to find models that allow for less expensive demolition.
Post a Comment