2004-08-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

42 neighborhood is almost unanimously against the rezoning because of concern about the density. He said Council is feeling growing pains with having a PUD on such a small lot. He said the project's conflict with PUD objectives is a further conflict. Mr. Lynch said that as we try to resolve this issue, we should do it in the context of limiting it to Commerce Street which directly borders a mixed use district. He said the project could serve as a buffer between that and the neighborhood. He said we need to make sure we are not setting a precedent. Ms. Hamilton said she strongly disagrees with Mr. Lynch. She said she has heard from more who are against than for the project, but she does not think this will open the floodgate of development and feels that is a red herring. She said each PUD must be considered on its own merits. She said she thinks there needs to be more time for education about the points of the ordinances and the aims of PUDs on small lots. She said she cannot support deferring the ordinance as she thinks Council has enough information to decide. Mr. Schilling said he feels it is important when there are acknowledged ambiguities that staff present all sides so Council can come to its own conclusions. He made a substitute motion, in deference to the property owner, to deny the rezoning. Dr. Brown ruled the motion out of order because it is not germane to the motion to defer. Dr. Brown said he concurs with Ms. Hamilton that Council should honor the request of the owner not to defer the vote. The motion to defer the rezoning failed by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati and Mr. Lynch. Noes: Dr. Brown and Ms. Hamilton. Abstaining: Mr. Schilling. Mr. Schilling offered a substitute motion to deny the rezoning, but it died for lack of a second. Dr. Brown said he is not persuaded by arguments about which ordinance has precedence. He said he thinks if the Planning Commission supports the rezoning that he is inclined to look favorably on their recommendation. He said he does not think this sets a precedent. He said Council may need to look at the ordinance and discuss size and open space requirements. He said he is inclined to support the rezoning. The ordinance rezoning Commerce Street property to PUD was denied by the following vote. Ayes: Dr. Brown and Ms. Hamilton. Noes: Mr. Lynch and Mr. Schilling. Abstaining: Mr. Caravati. ORDINANCE: CLOSING OLD 5TM STREET, S.W. Mr. Tolbert said that Southern Development has requested that Old 5th Street, off Harris Road, be closed. He said issues had been raised previously by Council about the value of the street and what is being offered. He said Southern Development has offered two options: 1) $50,000 for the property and six affordable units (in the $150,000 range) done in partnership with Piedmont Housing Alliance; or 2) no payment for the property and six affordable units ($175,000 or lower). Mr. Tolbert noted that the offer of $50,000 exceeds the Assessor's value on the property. Ms. Hamilton asked for explanation of the affordable housing proposed, and what the mortgage would be if they partner with PHA. Mr. Frank Bailiff of Southern Development, said that mortgage amounts with PHA are 80% of the sales price. Mr. Bailiff presented a third option for Council's consideration: no payment and four affordable units ($150,000) and an assurance that the funds will be returned if the units are sold.