Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Development Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan & Design Commission recommends 19‑unit, five‑story development on Second Street despite neighborhood opposition
Summary
Fulton Developers’ proposal for a five‑story, 19‑unit condominium at 1632–1646 Second Street was recommended to City Council after the commission adopted findings of fact. The project requests variances for height, lot coverage and story count; neighbors raised scale, tree preservation, traffic and construction‑period concerns.
Fulton Developers’ proposal for a five‑story, 19‑unit condominium complex at 1632–1646 Second Street was the subject of extensive public comment on Sept. 16, and the Plan and Design Commission adopted findings of fact recommending approval to City Council.
Planner Patrick Kaufman summarized relief requested: a height increase (the project requests 64 feet where 51 feet is allowed), an increase from four to five stories, and increased lot coverage (the applicant showed about 49% lot coverage where 33.3% is typical), plus relief from some landscaping and pedestrian‑entrance rules. The project also proposed a public‑benefit package that included a $100,000 donation to the city housing trust fund and an inclusionary‑housing plan the Housing Commission approved (the applicant requested a payment‑in‑lieu for one inclusionary unit and allowed stacking of affordable units as part of the approved plan).
Neighbors and condo residents from nearby buildings urged denial or more restraint. Dennis Siegel, Beth Russell and Dale Cohortis said the development would be out of scale with existing blocks, would add further construction traffic and noise after recent multi‑year projects in the same corridor, and could threaten mature trees on the parkway. Residents asked whether rooftop mechanical screening would be counted in height; project representatives said rooftop mechanical equipment will be enclosed behind rooftop screening and is not included in the regulated building height. Residents also asked whether traffic and emergency access would be affected; staff said the applicant updated the traffic analysis to include recent nearby projects (including the Walbright) and that police and fire did not raise feasibility objections.
Commission debate focused on balancing municipal housing goals and neighborhood character. Commissioner Henry cast the sole “no” vote during the findings adoption; the motion to adopt the findings and recommend the PUD and design review to City Council passed by roll call. The commission’s recommendation and the applicant’s housing contribution and agreed inclusionary plan will go to City Council for final action.
