Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the South Cooper topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission requests redesign and indefinitely continues South Cooper housing plan over buffer and design concerns
Summary
Commissioners expressed strong reservations about a proposed 52‑lot single‑family subdivision on South Cooper (PD25‑10), citing close proximity to industrial uses, insufficient northern buffers, and potential dust/noise issues; the applicant requested and received an indefinite continuance to revise the plan.
The Planning and Zoning Commission on Aug. 6 indefinitely continued PD25‑10, a proposed plan development for roughly 52 single‑family lots at 7819/7827 South Cooper Street, after commissioners raised persistent concerns about homes sited within 15 feet of industrial property and asked the applicant to return with a reworked plan that better protects future homeowners.
Clifford Goldstein, principal planner, outlined the requested RS‑5 plan and numerous deviations from the UDC: narrower lot sizes than typically required, front‑loading garages that would occupy a larger percentage of façade width than allowed, block lengths exceeding recommended maximums and a rear‑setback under requested standards. Staff recommended level‑3 screening where the subdivision abuts industrial zoning and additional trees and open space.
Applicant Nikki Moore presented a 52‑lot design that preserves trees and provides about 22% open space; she described alley access for garages and a central common area used to protect preserved trees. Commissioners repeatedly pressed whether the northern lots should be reconfigured — for example, switching to alley‑loaded lots, eliminating a few lots to create deeper buffers, lowering some northern homes to one story, or installing an 8–10‑foot board‑on‑board fence instead of a masonry wall.
Several commissioners said the plan as submitted risks producing lots that will be difficult to sell and may convert to rentals, and they expressed concern about dust and heavy‑truck activity where the site borders industrial operations. Commissioner Carter said he could not support the plan as presented and urged a redesign with a larger buffer. The applicant asked for an indefinite continuance to explore alternative layouts and materials; the motion to continue indefinitely passed 8–0.
What happens next: The applicant will revisit the plan to address the northern buffer, consider layout alternatives (alley-loaded or cottage‑court approaches), and return with a revised site plan that responds to commissioners’ recommendations.
