Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Pud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables rezoning/PUD for 6600 New Albany-Condit Road after neighbors raise screening, parking and driveway concerns
Summary
The Planning Commission heard a proposed rezoning to an infill PUD at 6600 New Albany-Condit Road but voted to table the application to the December meeting so the applicant can address neighbor screening, parking calculations, drainage and driveway width concerns.
The Planning Commission on Oct. 20 reviewed a request to rezone 6600 New Albany-Condit Road from Village Center rural-residential to an infill planned-unit development for low-density office uses, but tabled the application to the regularly scheduled December meeting after extensive questions from neighbors and commissioners.
Staff described a preliminary development plan showing conversion of the house and an accessory structure to professional offices, with parking and required service-area screening. Applicant counsel Aaron Underhill and owner Rob Riddle said they intended to retain existing buildings, pave the gravel lot, install screening (a proposed 6-foot fence on the southern boundary), and limit future demolition or full redevelopment so that larger changes would require a rezoning.
Neighbors including Danielle Jeffers spoke in opposition, citing privacy, driveway confusion, narrow curb cuts, and the loss of residential character. Commissioners and staff discussed technical issues including whether the developer could meet commercial driveway-width standards, the presence of underground drainage tile limiting fence placement, whether planting under power lines is feasible, and whether fee-in-lieu for streetscape trees better suits an upcoming corridor planning study.
Commissioners asked the applicant to return with more detailed screening and engineering plans addressing drainage, driveway access, parking numbers (staff noted the village-center parking approach yields an 11-space typical maximum rather than the initially cited 33), and options for shared access or additional barriers between properties. The commission voted unanimously to table the application to the December meeting to allow the applicant to refine the proposal and pursue neighbor discussions.
The tabling preserves the applicant’s option to return with amended materials and does not constitute a recommendation to council; the rezone will require later council and ARB review as part of the PUD process.
