2005-11-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

458 proposal. He said there needs to be a more concerted effort made by staff and the applicant to contact the neighbors. He said the neighborhood sees this as a relative unknown change. He said he is uncomfortable about the application that changes the neighborhood from single family to a relatively unknown. He said the immediate neighbors do not participate in the neighborhood association. He said he is asking that the rezoning be deferred, or said a first reading could be done and then the residents could be reached out to regarding the impact of the change prior to the second reading. Dr. Brown said that at the joint public hearing he felt this was a unique circumstance and he was positively impressed with the proposal. He said this is more of a bed and breakfast type proposal. He asked what the neighborhood involvement was. Mr. Haluska said that the normal process of contacting all residents within 500 feet of the rezoning was followed. He said there were two preliminary reviews and citizens attended both meetings. He said that the proffers limit the use and it is not a blanket B-1 zoning. He said the applicant also went around the neighborhood. Ms. Hamilton said she feels the applicant might have gotten bad advice. She said she should have gone for a bed and breakfast designation. She said she does not share Mr. Caravati's concerns. She said she thinks there may be significant confusion. She asked if there is any way to make it more clear about what is intended. Mr. Caravati said the fact that the rezoning is for three houses, not one concerns people. Dr. Brown said that if the specific use proposed is not done then the original zoning applies. Mr. Schilling said he appreciates the applicant knocking on doors. He said there is a misperception of what this is going to be. He said he is uncomfortable moving forward. He said we are being asked to change the zoning to a more intensive use. He expressed concern about loss of affordable housing. He said the public process bothers him the most. He said people objected, and asked why we should not listen to them. He said we do not have to make this change and he is not compelled to do it. He made a motion to deny the rezoning. Mr. Caravati made a substitute motion to defer the rezoning, and Mr. Schilling seconded the motion. Ms. Hamilton said she will support deferring the rezoning in order to investigate the information further. Mr. Caravati said there is no hurry to do this in two weeks. Ms. Mary Hunter, 702 Sonoma Street, applicant for the rezoning, said there is a misconception about the project. She said 702 Sonoma Street is her home and was included in order to make the rezoning contiguous. She said she has no intention of having boarding houses. She said 709 Sonoma Street may fall out of the plans. She said the maximum occupancy of 625 Monticello Avenue is eight people. She said that the occupancy of 709 Sonoma Street is ten, if she takes that on. She said residency would be limited to no more than two weeks in the proffers. She said she took the boarding house designation because she does not reside in those houses. Mr. Lynch agreed with Ms. Hamilton that the term boarding house has a different connotation than a bed and breakfast. He said his recollection of the meeting is different than Mr. Schilling's. He said he thought the neighbors accepted the proposal after hearing the clarification. Mr. Lynch said it seems that this could almost be done by right. Mr. Tolbert said it could not be done by right because of the restriction of four unrelated residents.