PC Minutes 12/14/05
ITEM NO.
18: C-5 TO RM-2; 3.13 ACRES;
BETWEEN W. 6TH AND W. 7TH STREETS WEST OF
Z-10-68-05: A request to rezone a tract of land
approximately 3.13 acres from C-5 (Limited Commercial) District to RM-2
(Multiple-Family Residential) District.
The property is generally described as being located between W. 6th
and W. 7th Streets east of
PC Minutes 12/14/05
ITEM NO.
19: RM-2 TO RO-1B; 4.41 ACRES;
NORTH OF
Z-10-69-05: A request to rezone a tract of land
approximately 4.41 acres from RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District to
RO-1B (Residence-Office) District. The
property is generally described as being located north of
PC Minutes 12/14/05
ITEM NO.
20: RM-2 TO RO-1A; 1.60 ACRES;
BETWEEN W. 7TH AND W. 6TH STREETS EAST OF
Z-10-70-05: A request to rezone a tract of land
approximately 1.60 acre from RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District to
RO-1A (Residence-Office) District. The
property is generally described as being located between W. 7th and
W. 6th Streets, east of
PC Minutes 12/14/05
ITEM NO.
21: RM-2 TO R0-2; 2.27 ACRES;
NORTH OF
Z-10-71-05: A request to rezone a tract of land
approximately 2.27 acres from RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District to
RO-2 (Residence-Office) District. The
property is generally described as being located north of
PC Minutes 12/14/05
ITEM NO.
22: RM-3 TO RM-2; 2.19 ACRES;
SOUTH OF
Z-10-72-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately
2.19 acres from RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) District to RM-2
(Multiple-Family Residential) District.
The property is generally described as being located south of
PC Minutes 12/14/05
ITEM NO.
23: RM-3 TO RS-2; .70 ACRES;
NORTH OF INTERSECTION OF
Z-10-73-05: A request to rezone a tract of land
approximately .70 acres from RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) District to
RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District.
The property is generally described as being located north of the
intersection of
PC Minutes 12/14/05
ITEM NO.
24: C-5 TO RO-1; .84 ACRES;
NORTHEAST CORNER OF
Z-10-74-05: A request to rezone a tract of land
approximately .84 acres from C-5 (Limited Commercial) District to RO-1
(Residence-Office) District. The
property is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of
PC Minutes 12/14/05
ITEM NO.
25: C-5 TO RO-1A; 2.02 ACRES;
NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF
Z-10-75-05: A request to rezone a tract of land
approximately 2.02 acres from C-5 (Limited Commercial) District to RO-1A
(Residence-Office) District. The
property is generally described as being located at the northwest intersection
of Michigan and W. 7th Streets, and south of W. 7th
Street between Michigan and Arkansas Streets (615, 639, 645, and 647 Michigan;
705 Arkansas). Initiated
by the City Commission on 10/25/05, based on recommendations in the HOP
District Plan.
PC Minutes 12/14/05
ITEM NO.
26: C-5 TO RM-3; THREE ACRES;
SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF
Z-10-76-05: A request to rezone a tract of land
approximately three acres from C-5 (Limited Commercial) District to RM-3
(Multiple-Family Residential) District.
The property is generally described as being located at the southeast
intersection of W. 7th Street and
PC Minutes 12/14/05
ITEM NO.
27: C-5 TO RO-2; .51 ACRES;
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
Z-10-77-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately
.51 acres from C-5 (Limited Commercial) District to RO-2 (Residence-Office)
District. The property is generally
described as being located at the southwest corner of
Michelle Leininger presented these items together.
She noted that the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association task force has been
working on this.
Item 18: An 84 unit
apartment complex. NW corner is a separate lot and included in packet is a copy of the
approved site plan; the corner is identified for future commercial use, leaving
it as C-5 would be appropriate. The commercial lot is separately platted.
Item 19: The back portion of Eagle’s Club Lodge
and a vacant lot. The proposed zoning is less dense of a residential district
than the current zoning district yet allows professional office uses.
Item 20: The lots are currently developed with
4-plexes.
Item 21: Currently developed with duplexes and
single-family home.
Item 22: Currently developed with a single-family
home. Staff recommended denial on this item, asking it be initiated to RM-1, a
more appropriate density between single-family and high-density residential to
the east. Property owner was unable to be here, but has been working with the
neighborhood and is willing to downzone to RM-2 but not to RM-1 as staff had
recommended.
Item 23: This is a portion of a property that the
remaining is zoned RS-2, single-family residential. The recommendation would
allow the item to be zoned like the rest of the property.
Item 24: apartment
complex.
Item 25: triplex
Item 26: 72-unit apartment building
Item 27: vet office
Krebs: 22: On the one recommending denial, speak
to differences and reason the owner did not want to go down to RM-1. Staff:
Density allowed in RM-2 is 21 units per acre and RM-1 is 12 units per acre. The
owner bought the property for redevelopment potential.
Public hearing
Item 18: A member of the
neighborhood supported staff recommendation.
Harris wondered what size of business could go in
that space. A representative for the property owner commented that the primary
thought was that it would be an ATM to serve the population of the apartment
complex.
Action taken
Motioned by Harris, seconded
by Lawson to rezone this tract from C-5 to RM-2 except for the one portion that
has been requested to leave C-5 and to forward a recommendation to City
Commission. Eichhorn asked that the second reflect that the exception is lot 1B.
Motion carried unanimously,
10-0.
Public hearing
Item 19: No member of the public
spoke on this item.
Action taken
Motioned by Eichhorn,
seconded by Ermeling to recommend approval.
Motion carried
unanimously, 10-0.
Public hearing
Item 20: No member of the public
spoke on this item.
Action taken
Motioned by Eichhorn,
seconded by Ermeling to recommend approval.
Motion carried
unanimously, 10-0.
Public hearing
Item 21: No member of the public
spoke on this item.
Action taken
Motioned by Eichhorn,
seconded by Ermeling to recommend approval.
Motion carried
unanimously, 10-0.
Meeting
extended 10 minutes.
Public hearing
Item 22: A member of the public
noted that the subject property is currently a single-family home, is historic,
and supports that it be down-zoned to RM-1.
Action taken
Motioned by Eichhorn,
seconded by Ermeling, to deny the zoning to RM-2.
Per request of Haase, Emily Hill, who was head of
the task force, commented that she would not oppose down-zoning to RM-1.
Motion carried, 7-3, with
Burress, Haase, and Harris voting in opposition.
Motioned by Krebs,
seconded by Ermeling to initiate a re-zoning form RM-3 to RM-1.
Motion carried
unanimously, 10-0.
Public hearing
Item 23: No member of the public
spoke on this item.
Action taken
Motioned by Harris,
seconded by Ermeling to recommend approval.
Motion carried
unanimously, 10-0.
Public hearing
Item 24: No member of the public
spoke on this item.
Action taken
Motioned by Harris,
seconded by Ermeling to recommend approval.
Motion carried unanimously,
10-0.
Public hearing
Item 25: James Dunn, who owns the
properties that are a part of this item, excluding 705
Emily Hill noted that she was somewhat torn on the
issue because originally the task force wanted C-1 zoning for that area but the
C-1 zoning is not an option for the area. She liked the idea of small
neighborhood commercial area. The new Development Code was mentioned regarding
a district where neighborhood commercial and residential would be allowed.
Staff clarified that the district being proposed
is the CN-1 District, which allows commercial and residential development.
These properties could be revisited for zoning after the adoption of the
Development Code.
Meeting
extended until 12:30 p.m.
Action taken
Motioned by Krebs, seconded by Ermeling to to approve the rezoning of 705 Arkansas but not of the
Michigan addresses, with the understanding that the Commission will revisit the
zoning at a time when we have appropriate zoning category.
Motion carried
unanimously, 10-0.
Public hearing
Item 26: No member of the public
spoke on this item.
Action taken
Motioned by Harris,
seconded by Ermeling to recommend approval.
Motion carried
unanimously, 10-0.
Public hearing
Item 27: No member of the public
spoke on this item.
Action taken
Motioned by Harris,
seconded by Ermeling to recommend approval.
Motion carried
unanimously, 10-0.