Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Lot Split 700 Grandin topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears third reading on 700 Grandin lot split; ordinance taken off table then re-tabled for Feb. decision
Summary
City Council opened a hearing on a lot-split and variance request for 700 Grandin Avenue on Jan. 28, took the ordinance off the table for consideration, and then re-tabled the matter until the first February meeting.
City Council opened a public hearing on Ordinance 42-24 — a request to split the lot at 700 Grandin Avenue and allow a new single-family home — during the Jan. 28 meeting, then moved the item off the table for discussion and ultimately tabled the matter again for the council’s first February meeting.
Councilmember Anthony Marcelino introduced the applicant and the project and invited the owners’ representative to describe the request. Connie Klima, representing the property owners, told council the lots were platted “years ago” at 40-foot widths; the owner wishes to build a house on the adjacent lot but the lot pattern is nonconforming under the current R-6 rules. Klima said, in effect, the request seeks to restore the platted lot pattern and allow construction of a new home on lot 132 next to the existing house on lot 131.
City legal and planning staff explained the seven statutory considerations the council must weigh for an area variance — including whether the property can yield reasonable return without a variance, whether the variance is substantial, and whether the character of the neighborhood would be altered. City Planner Matt Klingler and city attorney counsel recommended that council grant the variances if the ordinance passes, noting that some specific variances (side-yard setback adjustments, relocation of a condensing unit and possibly a fence) were written into the proposed ordinance so the applicant would not need separate Board of Zoning Appeals review. Klingler also said the new house would need architectural review and review by the Tree and Public Garden Commission.
No members of the public took the podium during the hearing. Council first voted to take Ordinance 42-24 off the table so the hearing could proceed. Motion to remove from the table: moved by Councilmember Anthony Marcelino; seconded by Councilmember Matthew Hurley. Roll call on the motion to remove from the table recorded unanimous support: Miss Fiebel — yes; Mister Markham — yes; Mister Hurley — yes; Mister Marcelino — yes; Miss Saad — yes; Miss Lampe — yes; Mister Silverman — yes; motion passed.
After questions and discussion, and with the applicant stating that waiting would not impede the development timeline, Marcelino moved to table Ordinance 42-24 to the first meeting in February; Hurley seconded. Roll call on the motion to table recorded unanimous support: Miss Lampe — yes; Mister Hurley — yes; Mister Markham — yes; Mister Marcelino — yes; Miss Fiebel — yes; Mister Silverman — yes; Miss Saad — yes. The motion passed; council will take final action in early February.
Councilmembers stressed that written application materials and staff analyses were on the record and had been circulated in advance for review. Staff noted the property has historically been assessed by the county as single-family lots, and that the applicant will need to submit architectural plans for ARB review and coordinate with the Tree and Public Garden Commission once the subdivision and variances proceed.
Votes at a glance: - Motion to remove Ordinance 42-24 from the table — Moved: Anthony Marcelino; Second: Matthew Hurley. Outcome: passed (unanimous roll call yes). - Motion to table Ordinance 42-24 until the first February meeting — Moved: Anthony Marcelino; Second: Matthew Hurley. Outcome: passed (unanimous roll call yes).
