Natchitoches council upholds denial of proposed Cypress Avenue multi‑family development

The Natchitoches City Council on a 4–0 roll call vote upheld the Planning & Zoning Commission's denial of a rezoning request for a lot on Cypress Avenue that the applicant said would accommodate four duplex buildings intended for rental housing.

The applicant, Heath Nichols, asked the council to reverse a March 4 denial and allow the site to be rezoned from single‑family R‑1 to R‑2. Nichols' wife, Katrina Nichols, described the proposal as an "intentional investment" in the neighborhood and said the developer owns multiple rental properties in Central Louisiana and would maintain the site. "We are very, very visual about the properties that we maintain," Katrina Nichols told the council during public comment.

Neighbors and historic‑district representatives urged the council to uphold the denial, citing drainage, parking, traffic and preservation concerns. Mary Striegel, president of the Natchitoches Historic District Homeowners Association, said the project would add density to a narrow street and described the plan's capacity as a problem: "That means we would have 4 people in each of those properties. That's 16 people, 16 cars," she said. Other neighbors warned the construction could damage century‑old oak trees and that headlights and driveway activity would affect an adjoining 96‑year‑old resident.

City staff explained the history of zoning in the district, noting a 2005 down‑zoning to preserve single‑family character and that property owners then had an option to opt out. The city attorney warned the proposed configuration—four two‑story multifamily buildings clustered around a centralized parking lot with little yard space—resembled higher‑density multifamily development and may be inconsistent with R‑2 zoning. "I do not believe this is a traditional duplex or low‑density residential arrangement," the attorney said, arguing the proposal more closely aligns with R‑3 multifamily standards.

Council members acknowledged a mix of views: some said they support development in principle but found the submitted plan inconsistent with the zoning classification and neighborhood conditions. After discussion, a council member moved to uphold the Planning & Zoning Commission's denial; the motion was seconded and carried on a roll call that recorded votes to uphold from Eli, Nielsen, Harrington and PT.

The denial leaves the applicant able to pursue other options: staff said a new R‑2 application cannot be resubmitted for six months, though an R‑1 or other new application could be prepared sooner and would follow the planning review process.

The council's action preserves the district's current R‑1 designation for the parcel and defers any reconfigured proposal to future review.