Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Schiller asked about the width of the building. Mr.Romano stated that the end of the <br /> building is 46 feet wide but with the inclusion of the stairwell it is 60 feet wide. <br /> Mr. Van Steenhuyse stated that although it was not what the petitioner had requested, multiple <br /> zones can be included in a Planned Unit Development. The B-2 zoning would still allow a <br /> residential development and would not affect how this property will be used. Should the owner <br /> want a different use there would have to be a petition to request amendment of the Planned Unit <br /> Development. <br /> Mr. Thomas Malenshek, 110 Haworth,was present and questioned if there was something in <br /> place administratively to track a request four to five years from now that someone might make to <br /> develop this property in a way that is not presently allowed by the Planned Unit Development. <br />' Ms. Vicki Wakefield,941 West Wood, was present and spoke against the petition stating that <br /> there is already a problem with parking and the driveways are narrow. She stated that homes <br /> which are 100 years old cannot be replaced and she read a statement fromNWRAPS requesting <br /> that the development proceed with respect for the existing residential area. <br /> Mr. John Frazier, 1043 West Wood,was present and spoke against the petition. Mr.Frazier lives <br /> in the house next door to the development. He stated that Mr.Romano had constructed a nice <br /> building and had met with the property owners but there is nothing in writing regarding the width <br /> of the building. Mr. Frazier stated that his house is approximately two feet from the property <br /> line as it was built in a time when there were no setback regulations. The foundation is brick and <br /> he is remortaring inside and out. <br /> Mr. Frazier expre�sed concern that a dumpster would sit right next to his fence and it would be <br /> difficult for a garbage truck to get the dumpster without hitting the utility poles or the fence. He <br /> stated that the parking is not adequate for a restaurant, other commercial uses and two apartment <br /> buildings. Mr. Frazier stated that the legal notice referenced Lots 1 through 11; he has Lot 3 and <br /> Ms. Herbert has Lot 2 and they are not interested in being part of the Planned Unit Development. <br /> Mr. Frazier presented 63 signatures of those in opposition to the proposed B-2 zoning as they <br /> would like to see it remain R-6. <br /> Mr. Schiller asked the difference in parking requirements of R-6 and B-2. Mr. Van Steenhuyse <br /> stated that R-6 parking requirements are based on the number of bedrooms and B-2 requirements <br /> are based on square footage. Mr. Bragg stated that parking requirements are assigned by use and <br /> not the zoning classification. <br /> Mr. Cochran stated that the petitioner would be willing to amend the petition to reflect B-2 and <br /> R-6 zoning in the Planned Unit Development with the uses remaining exactly the same. <br /> Mr. Cochran stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires a number of parking stalls and this <br /> petition is only four short of the requirement. Seven of the parking spaces were removed on <br /> Wood Street due to concerns expressed by the residents. Mr.Cochran agreed there is congestion <br /> on Wood Street and that there would be parking on Oakland,Macon and in the other parking <br /> lots. <br />