I was very consistent all along in asking that the City simply follow the letter of the law in the City Place matter–which incidentally was not located in a downtown development zoning district. It’s very clear now that the puppet masters behind the project (the ones with the money) never had any intention of building anything but a maxed-out undergraduate warehouse, and that’s what is being built.

With all of the expert analysis laid at their feet by neighbors and others, those responsible for enforcing the zoning ordinances and laws had any number of opportunities to legally and responsibly shape the end result–whether it was a smaller undergraduate warehouse or an historic district that preserved the houses–but they did nothing. Or worse, they played along with the developer’s game of chicken because of their own personal vision of how the City should develop. How easy it is to blame those damn “NIMBY’s,” as if they were the ones who created this monster in the first place.

City Place does not glower at me. It glowers at the Mayor and Council, the planning commission, the City Attorney, the ZBA, and City planning staff. It glowers at everyone who has been responsible for City zoning for years, but failed to do anything to correct the deficiencies that allowed this to happen (and have still done nothing almost three years later). But most of all, it glowers at those who instigated this whole thing only to be pushed out the back door.

Does anyone else see the irony in this attitude, especially when it directly resulted in the recent destruction (instead of renovation) of several historic homes on 5th Avenue?

And yes, Martha, there is a place for PUDs and planned projects: Ask the Old West Side about the recent project on South Main they supported.

May City Place glower at you every time you walk by.

a. Thanks for the reference. These small lessons are one reason we love the Chronicle.

b. The pun machine seems well-oiled this month. Of course I’m complaining. That’s how one expresses appreciation for a good (BAD!) pun.

For readers not well-versed in the history of zoning laws in the U.S., the ancient geometer was not a zoning Greek. The reference here is to a U.S. Supreme Court case from 1926 (Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.)

PUDs and Planned Projects are zoning tools that were created to provide some flexibility from the strict application of Euclidean zoning in order to deal with especially difficult parcels that present unique challenges to meeting the underlying zoning. They are not supposed to be used in every case simply to stretch every parcel to its maximum development potential.

Honestly, I don’t understand why–with the current City planning staff, planning commission, and city council we have–this property owner felt any need to bother with a rezoning request. He should simply do what other downtown project developers have done recently: submit what he wants to build as a planned project, add a few more parking spaces than the very few required (calling that a “public benefit),” then watch the project fly through the approval process. Just to be sure, he should also try to slip in the terms “luxury student housing,” “gateway project” or “young professional” now and then. They really like those.