Laserfiche WebLink
Excerpts from Decatur city Plan Commission, March 2, 2006 <br /> Cal. No. 06-20 Petition of NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING <br /> DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, to rezone the <br /> property at 736 South Martin Luther King Jr. Drive <br /> from R-6, Multiple Dwelling District to R 3, Single <br /> Family Residence District. i <br /> Mrs. Joselyn Stewart was sworn in by Ms. Jesse. <br /> Mrs. Stewart presented the recommendation of staff: <br /> The subject site is located at 736 South Martin Luther King Jr. Drive and contains <br /> approximately 1.65 acres. The property is currently undeveloped. Webster Hall <br /> occupied this site until it was demolished in 2004. <br /> The petitioner proposes to construct a total of six (6) single family residences at the site. <br /> Access for the subdivision will be a cul du sac from Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. The site <br /> will be divided into six individual lots. A preliminary and final plat will be submitted at a <br /> later date. <br /> The surrounding zoning includes R-6 Multiple Dwelling District, R 5 Two Family <br /> Residence District, B-1 Neighborhood Shopping District and B-2 Commercial District. <br /> The Decatur Urban Area Land Use Plan shows this area as High Density Residential. <br /> The proposed rezoning to R-3 Single Family Residence District is compatible with the <br /> adjacent surrounding mixed uses in the area. Adjacent property values will not be <br /> diminished with the rezoning. <br /> Based on the above analysis, staff recommends approval of the petition. <br /> Ms. Adrian I,ynch, representative for petitioner, was sworn in by Ms. Jesse. <br /> Ms. Lynch stated she was with SKS Engineering and was representing the petitioner and <br /> would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have. <br /> Mr. Tom Smith questioned whether it would be easier to drive in from the other street <br /> instead of Martin Luther King Jr. Drive. Ms.Lynch stated that they felt this was the best <br /> way to enter and exit because of the topography. <br /> No objectors were present. <br /> It was moved and seconded (Tom Smith/John) to forward Cal. No. Ofr20 to the City <br /> Council with the recommendation for approval as submitted by the petitioner. Motion <br /> carried unanimously. <br />