2001-05 REZONING PROPERTY - 701 WEST GRAND AVENUE

Home Browse Search

the plans are not ready. The petitioner is requesting B-2 because more points will be obtained for tax credits if the property is zoned B-2 and used for residential purposes. Legally, the R-6 zoning is enough. Mr. Heavner stated that the clients intend to come back in March for the B-2 zoning. Mr. Van Steenhuyse stated that he was not aware the request was going to be made for B-2 zoning although it is not an impossibility. He stated that B-2 allows a myriad of uses some of which are not appropriate for the neighborhood. The R-6 zoning allows the multi-family use. Mr. Heavner stated that Mrs. Morthland has suggested presenting the petition for Plan Commission approval of the R-6 zoning subject to submittal of a Planned Unit Development. Mrs. Washington stated that she is concerned with multi-family use in this area where work has been done by various groups to retain the area as single family. Mr. Heavner stated that he is also the Attorney for DCDF and understands some of the concerns. He stated that the school will look the same as it does now. The other structures would be townhomes with six or seven units in a building. Those structures would serve to buffer the units in the school. He stated that to have this development is more stabilizing than to allow the school to stand and deteriorate. Mr. Shampine stated that they are all valid concerns and the reality is that the school has closed. There is an opportunity for development rather than allowing the school to deteriorate. He stated that a large vacant lot would be worse than the proposal before the Commission. He noted that there would be single and multi-family uses in the Near North Redevelopment Area. Mr. Shampine stated that he hopes the property is developed, maintained and a Planned Unit Development is submitted. It was moved and seconded (Schiller/Jacobs)to forward Cal. No. O1-06 to City Council with recommendation for approval of the R-6 zoning contingent upon timely receipt of a Residential Development Plan. Motion carried with eight yea votes, one nay vote and two abstentions. Those Commissioners voting yea: Schiller, Anderson, Clevenger, Jacobs, John, Peck, Smallwood, Shampine. Commissioner Washington voted nay. Commissioners Setina and Smith abstained from the vote.