2004-07-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

12 and lack of backyards. Ms. Scale said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD on a four to one vote. Responding to a question from Ms. Hamilton about the accessory unit, Ms. Scala said staff recommended not approving the unit because of the density issue and because the 15% open space could not be met. She said there will be no on-site parking for the accessory unit, noting that only the townhouses will have on-site parking. Mr. Schilling said he visited the site. He said items were missing from the staff report, including the reason for the dissenting vote by a Planning Commissioner and the petition opposing the rezoning that was signed by a large number of people in the neighborhood. He wondered if we are going too far afield with this. He said that parking on Commerce Street for the Funeral Home would disappear with this rezoning because of the driveways. He said parking for the accessory apartment would have to be on the street. He said he feels the Funeral Home has valid concerns. He said he is hesitant to waive the open space requirement outside of a general policy. He expressed concern with the proffer of $2,880 to buy out of the open space requirement. Mr. Schilling said that perhaps the development that is allowed by right should occur, but he does not think this proposal is a good idea. Ms. Hamilton expressed concern about not seeing the petition, and said she feels at a disadvantage not having had calls about the rezoning. Responding to a question from Dr. Brown, Ms. Scala said that the existing house and addition to it would have to rely on off-site parking. Mr. Lynch said he supports the rezoning, but feels that the PUD proposals have gone beyond the original purpose, though he feels there is value in this sort of development. He said it may be that we want to have a variation on a PUD. Mr. Lynch said the property's proximity to the Main Street Corridor lessens the need for open space. Mr. Lynch said the parking is a concern, but he is not sure how any property could be developed in such situations. Mr. Lynch said he feels this is a pretty innovative project. Dr. Brown said the Planning Commission was very thoughtful in their deliberations about this project, and he feels it is a good project. He agreed that he would like to see any additional information that is available. He noted that not all in the neighborhood oppose the rezoning. Mr. Schilling made a motion to deny the rezoning, but the motion died for lack of a second. On motion by Mr. Lynch, seconded by Mr. Caravati, the ordinance rezoning property on Commerce and 6th Street to PUD was offered and carried over to the next meeting for consideration. ORDINANCE: REZONING MADISON AND MEADOW STREET PROPERTY TO PUD (2nd reading) Mr. Tolbert said the proposal is to rezone from R-2 to PUD and to add five additional single family units. He said open space for this was included in Phase 1 of the project and exceeded 15%. He said questions had been raised previously by Councilors about the setbacks, and the plan has been revised to include setbacks from three to ten feet. Mr. Lynch said his concern is about the allowable level of massing, and asked if there is a way to better define the boundary by restricting units to 1,500 or 1,600 square feet or not to exceed the Phase 1 project. Mr. Lynch said this would provide flexibility in locating units on the site. Mr. Tolbert said the footprint of the building could be restricted to a maximum of 1,600 square feet if the applicant agreed to include that in the proffer statement