Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Joe Green Lane topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public hearing held on removing 2006 zoning conditions for Joe Green Lane parcel; neighbors support single-family home instead of large subdivision
Summary
A public hearing was held on ZCA2504-001, a request to remove 19 zoning conditions placed in 2006 on a 30+-acre parcel at the end of Joe Green Lane. The owner said he intends to build a single-family home; nearby residents told council they favor one house and preservation of trees rather than the previously approved larger subdivision.
City planning staff opened a public hearing June 5 on case ZCA2504-001, a request to remove zoning conditions placed on a 30-plus-acre parcel at the end of Joe Green Lane.
Planning staff explained the property had been annexed and rezoned in February and previously approved for up to a 69-lot residential subdivision; the owner now wants most or all of the 2006 conditions removed to build a single-family primary residence (with a possible accessory dwelling unit) instead.
The applicant, property owner Lee Lichtenstein, told council he purchased the lot to build a "forever home" and that the proposed disturbance for the house footprint would be less than 1% of the acreage. Builder Michael Grant presented a site sketch showing a limited land-disturbance area for a single-family dwelling.
Several neighbors spoke in support. Winnie Whitmore, of 614 Little Bear Loop in the Great Sky subdivision, said residents were relieved the request would likely preserve more trees than a 69-lot development and said she supported limiting development to a single home. "We're very much in favor of that property being kept with most trees possible in just 1 house," Whitmore said.
Adjoining-property owner Steve Gourley said he owns lots at 556 and 546 Joe Green Lane and supported a single-home outcome, saying a large subdivision would strain neighborhood roads.
After public comment, council closed the hearing and invited questions for planning staff. Planning staff estimated theoretical yield under R-10 zoning as a gross 133 units but, after accounting for roadways, buffers and detention the realistic figure would be closer to 65 units; staff said the current owner—s plan is for a single-family dwelling with a possible accessory dwelling unit, which fits the R-10 use.
The transcript records no final council action on the case at the June 5 meeting; council members asked planning staff questions but did not vote during the session recorded in the transcript.
