Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Intensification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City board upholds zoning administrator's finding that apartment conversions in Hollywood Rose Hill intensify use
Summary
A city board upheld a zoning administrator's determination that recent interior work converting shared common space into additional bathrooms and bedrooms at a Hollywood Rose Hill apartment complex constitutes an intensification of a nonconforming multifamily use, after residents raised safety, parking and neighborhood-impact concerns.
A city board on a zoning appeal unanimously upheld the zoning administrator's determination that renovations at a Hollywood Rose Hill apartment complex amount to an intensification of a nonconforming multifamily use, concluding the interior work altered how the buildings function and increased neighborhood impacts.
Residents from Hollywood Rose Hill and nearby blocks urged the board to deny the property owner's retroactive permit request, saying the conversion of common stairwells and hallways into additional bathrooms and the change from two- to three-bedroom units has already worsened parking congestion and raised safety concerns for pedestrians and children. The board moved into a closed session for legal advice and then voted to uphold the administrator's decision.
The contested work included installation of additional bathrooms in areas that formerly served as common circulation and the removal or blockage of a rear stairwell, elements neighbors said reduced the number of egress routes. Several neighborhood residents described a visible increase in street parking, tighter two-way passage on residential streets adjacent to the property and instances of late-night gatherings they attributed to student tenants.
"I would agree that this is not creating new dwelling units, but I'm arguing it is intensifying the existing dwelling units," said a speaker who identified themselves during the hearing. Multiple residents gave the board examples of what they called a student-oriented rental model, including advertising and on-site behavior they said was consistent with that use.
Neighborhood leaders offered photographic and anecdotal evidence. Guy Jones, a past president of the Hollywood Rose Hill neighborhood association, told the board the neighborhood had voted to support the zoning administrator's denial and said, "We strongly support the city's position that this is an intensification of use." Resident Emily Suski said the changes had already made South Gregg "at times ... a 1 car passable street" and described risks to children biking to the park and to school.
John Banes and William Lynn Shirley, neighbors who live one to two blocks from the property, said conversions historically draw more unrelated occupants and more cars per unit, amplifying parking and emergency-access problems. Jim Daniels, representing a neighborhood association, said work converting common hallways to bathrooms removed an escape route and "that space where the rear stairwell is was never intended to be repurposed, into bathrooms." Catherine Luchak noted a 2017 stairwell fire at the property that had resulted in a fatality and said removing an egress path raised safety concerns.
The property manager and an owner representative disputed the neighbors' conclusions. Lane Ligon, who said he manages rental property in the city and owns multiple units in the area, shared counts from his portfolio and said three-person households in three-bedroom units are common but argued the question of "intensification" under the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requires a legal reading. Appellate counsel and other parties debated UDO language about enlargement, expansion and intensification; counsel cited the UDO provision that permits expansion only into areas of a structure "manifestly arranged or designed for such use prior to the date that the use became a nonconformity."
After hearing public testimony and legal argument and taking a brief executive-session legal briefing, a board member moved to uphold the zoning administrator's determination. The board voted in favor; the chairperson announced the motion carried.
The board's action leaves in place the zoning administrator's record finding that the changes at the complex constitute an intensification of the nonconforming multifamily use. The board did not adopt any new remedies at the hearing; any required building-code enforcement or permit-removal actions were identified by staff as separate processes and were not resolved by the board vote.
