Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Melrose topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council gives first consideration to zoning change tied to Melrose Complete Streets project
Summary
The University Heights City Council held first consideration of Ordinance 260 to relax front-yard setback and impervious-surface rules for specific parcels affected by the Melrose Complete Streets project, enabling negotiated driveway relocations and easement agreements; staff said follow-up refinements and a special June 30 meeting are likely.
The University Heights City Council on June 9 took the first formal step toward changing the city’s zoning rules for a handful of properties affected by the Melrose Complete Streets project.
At first consideration of Ordinance 260, legal staff and public-works representatives described a narrowly tailored amendment that would relax certain front-yard setback, driveway-access and impervious-surface rules for specific parcels (including a parcel identified as 10 Closure Avenue). The change is intended to allow property owners and the city to relocate driveway access, permit secondary driveways off side streets and, in some cases, allow garages in what are technically front yards so that driveway access can be removed from Melrose Avenue near a signalized intersection.
Steve, who presented the legal background, said the amendment is driven by project constraints and public-safety concerns near the Melrose/Closure intersection and by the need to align zoning with negotiated easement and acquisition plans. He described the three categories of property interests the project will use — fee purchase, temporary construction easements and permanent utility easements — and said staff completed appraisals and review appraisals to establish just compensation for acquisitions tied to the project.
Staff noted the amendment is limited to properties directly affected by the Melrose East Streets project and that any final agreement still requires property-level negotiation, signed easements and accompanying financial compensation based on the appraisals. Property owners Mary Sue and Mark Bowers were present for the discussion; staff emphasized the ordinance simply enables the negotiations and does not itself finalize purchases or payments.
Council approved the first consideration 4-0-1. Staff said they expect to return to the council at a special meeting June 30 with any ordinance refinements and outstanding signatures so the council can complete subsequent readings if desired.
The zoning amendment is intended to reduce driveway access points on Melrose, improve intersection safety, and allow the city to implement bike lanes and a relocated intersection geometry without forcing property owners into nonviable access situations. If passed on final readings, the changes would apply only to the listed parcels and only in the combination described in the ordinance.
