2004-08-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

41 Mr. Brown noted that Council removed the minimum lot size for PUDs, and there is no exception for townhouses. Ms. Hamilton said she sees some room for different interpretations for PUDs versus townhouses. Ms. Hamilton said she thinks there is a public benefit. She said this is a vacant lot facing a highly industrialized area. She said there are currently no residents to watch over Jefferson School, and she thinks there are benefits to putting homeowners on that site. She said zoning is meant to be impartial and fair. She said families who own property are closed out of the process and do not have the ability to respond when Council puts more requirements on them. She said rezonings should not be just for private developers. Mr. Caravati asked for staff' s opinion about PUDs versus townhouses. Mr. Tolbert said he concurs with Mr. Brown. He said Council amended the Code to allow PUDS on any size lot. He said there is not set of standards in a PUD for townhouses to be in conflict with. He said that in PUDS, you write the development code. Dr. Brown asked if the Planning Commission discussed the project meeting the objectives of a PUD. Mr. Tolbert said the Planning Commission discussed the merits and open space requirement. Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati, Mr. Tolbert said that staff recommended against the accessory apartment because of parking concerns. Ms. Hamilton said she has received conflicting feedback from representatives of the family that owns the property about postponing the rezoning, and asked for clarification. Ms. Edwina Jackson, co-owner of the property, said the family would like to know if Council supports the rezoning or not. She said the family is concerned about the neighborhood. She said she would like Council to vote tonight. Ms. Hamilton noted that a duplex could be built on the property by right, and asked if the owners of the property would pursue that. Ms. Jackson said she is interested in a Council vote on what is proposed. Mr. Lynch said he understands that it is not a separate lot so duplexes could not be built. Ms. Jackson said it is a separate lot. Ms. Scala said there was a house on a separate lot on the back of the lot. Ms. Scala said there is a total of 7,400 square feet and she thinks there would be some way to get duplexes on the property. She said two attached units, each with an accessory unit, would be allowed by right. Mr. Schilling said the accessory units would only be allowed if the units were owner occupied, and Ms. Scala agreed. Mr. Schilling asked if the applicant could come back to the Planning Commission with something different if the rezoning is deferred. Mr. Brown said it depends on what is requested. He said they would certainly have to go back to the Planning Commission if they requested increased density. Mr. Caravati seconded the motion to defer the rezoning. He said he wants to see something built that serves both the neighborhood and the owners. He said the