Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLU00-04-03MinutesAugust 3, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU00-04-03 buildings of varying size are located to the south along Kavanaugh Boulevard. Approval of this amendment will increase the density of dwelling units located on the property from 16 units per acre to 24 units per acre. An increase in density of dwelling units on the applicant's property will increase the amount of multifamily units available in this section of the neighborhood. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the following neighborhood associations: Heights N.A., Hillcrest Residents N.A., Prospect Terrace N.A. Inc., and Sherrill Heights Garden Club. Staff has received no comments from area residents. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is not appropriate. Approval of this amendment will result in an increase in intensity of use in this area that is in conflict with the scale and character of the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (AUGUST 3, 2000) Brian Minyard, City Staff, made a brief presentation to the commission. Commissioner Craig Berry asked if there was a Single Family house facing south fronting "I" Street as well as the one in the plan amendment. Brian Minyard, City Staff, stated that the house in the plan amendment is a duplex and listed the properties in the amendment area and adjacent to it. John P. Gill the applicant stated his case before the commission with a description of the current condition of the property and presented his proposal for the property. Commissioner Craig Berry asked the applicant if there was any objection to keeping the access to the 4-plex only from J Street and constructing a new driveway to the duplex from "I" Street and eliminating access from both properties. The applicant stated that he would have no objections for doing so. 3 August 3, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU00-04-03 Keith Thompson spoke in opposition to the application and presented a petition of homeowners opposed to the application. Mr. Thompson then listed neighboring properties owned by the applicant located in the neighborhood and described a history of poor maintenance of said properties. Mr. Thompson also objected to the potential removal of any trees located on the property in question. Doug Greenwood spoke in opposition to the application and opposed the new location for an entrance to the property. Mr. Greenwood described a history of poor maintenance of the applicant's properties and expressed concerns about traffic. Keith Lynch spoke in opposition to the application and objected to the removal of trees. Mr. Lynch also stated concerns about altering the grade of the property to accommodate a new driveway as well as the effect of the proposal on traffic. W. M. Robertson spoke in opposition to the application and described a history of poor maintenance of the applicant's properties. Mr. Robertson also stated objections to a new driveway and to the removal of trees. Jim Linsky spoke in opposition to the application and described a history of poor maintenance of the applicant's properties. Mr. Linsky stated worries about introducing new multi -family units in an area surrounded by single- family housing in the area. The speaker also expressed concerns about traffic and stated that the closure of "I" Street for Holy Souls Church and School coupled with the traffic generated by Mount Saint Mary's Academy already caused traffic problems in the neighborhood. Neil Dobbins spoke in opposition to the application and stated concerns about traffic. Mr. Dobbins also described a history of poor maintenance of the applicant's properties in the neighborhood. Patricia Thompson spoke in opposition to the application and presented pictures of the applicant's property to the commission. Ms. Thompson listed concerns regarding the 4 August 3, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU00-04-03 lack of off street parking in the neighborhood, the density of neighborhood, the difficulties of garbage pick-up caused by traffic congestion. DeWitt Shotts spoke in opposition to the application and stated concerns about traffic. Mr. Shotts also stated concerns about the density of the neighborhood. Commissioner Judith Faust asked if there were curbs cuts currently on the north side of "I" Street. Bob Turner, Public Works, stated that this application did not have a curb cut but that there were curb cuts on this block of "I" Street. Commissioner Judith Faust asked a question about the eastward orientation of proposed 4-plex that is not characteristic of the neighborhood. Jim Lawson City Staff stated that the proposed building could not be turned because of its size. She continued that she was not concerned about density of the proposed development but about traffic problems. Commissioner Bob Lowry stated that he did not think the application would add to traffic problems in the neighborhood because most of the traffic problems are caused by other uses in the area. Commission Chair Pam Adcock asked the applicant if he had any comments to make in response to the opposition. The applicant stated that the current apartment building on the property contains six units. The applicant described the parking as adequate and that he has a goal of providing off-street parking for his tenants.' Mr. Gill also stated that the renters of single-family homes were responsible for the maintenance up keep of the property while the apartment building was under contract maintenance. Mr. Gill also addressed the alternative of duplexes but that duplexes would spread problems and that the problems would remain the same. Mr. Gill said that if not approved he could put either two single-family houses or duplexes on the property. Jim Lawson, city staff, stated that the applicant's only option without rezoning the property would be to construct two single-family homes on the two separate lots. 5 August 3, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU00-04-03 Commissioner Bob Lowry asked the applicant if he would be willing to amend his application according the conversation between the applicant and Commissioner Berry regarding the driveway. The applicant said he would be willing to amend his application. Commissioner Craig Barry stated that the opposition was based on perceptions of the residents concerning the applicant's property. The real problems concerning traffic in the area are caused by nearby institutions that generate traffic. Commissioner Berry stated his support for off street parking with the parking placed in the interior of the applicant's property and added that a second access to the property was not necessary. Commissioner Berry closed by stating that the neighborhood association submitted a letter stating that it did not oppose the removal of the single family house as long as a 2nd access to the property was not permitted. Commissioner Rohn Muse asked staff how many units the applicant could have if the application was approved. Monte Moore, city staff, stated that the applicant could have more than 10 units but the specific request for the long form POD was for 12 units. The resulting density would be 24 units per acre. Mr. Moore added that the planned residential development specifically committed the applicant to the proposed 12 units. Commissioner Rohn Muse asked the applicant how large the property was. The applicant replied that the property was considerably less than an acre. Commissioner Muse stated concerns about the size of the property. Commissioners Bill Rector and Commissioner Berry began a discussion about access to the property. Commissioners Bill Rector asked the applicant why he wanted to build a 4-plex on the property. The applicant stated that his reasons were economics and that any new single- family house would destroy trees on the property. Commissioners Bill Rector stated that he did not want to approve any new access to the property from "I" Street. Commissioner Bob Lowry asked the applicant if he would you August 3, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3.1 (Cont.) FILE NO.: LU00-04-03 be willing to amend application according to the discussions between the applicant and the commissioners. The applicant said he was willing to amend the application according to discussions held and not place a second entrance to the property on "I" Street. Planning Commission Chair Pam Adcock asked Mr. Lawson about the type of development allowed on the property according to the current zoning of the property. Mr. Lawson, city staff, stated that one small house would be allowed by right on each lot and added that the proposal before the commission requested a new use that is too intense for the neighborhood. Monte Moore, city staff, added that the applicant would have to change the configuration of his parking lot. The applicant stated that he did not intend to mislead anyone at the meeting concerning his application. Commissioner Judith Faust asked if a land use plan amendment was necessary for a Planned Residential Development. Stephen Giles replied that a land use plan amendment was not legally required and added that the Planned Residential Development is a combination of a land use plan, zoning and subdivision review. Jim Lawson, city staff, stated that the current use of the applicant's property is non -conforming. A motion was made to approve the item as presented. The item was denied with a vote of 5 ayes, 4 noes, and 2 absent. The item failed because of a lack of 6 votes for the change per the commission's bylaws. 7