I'm surprised by the reaction sparked by my Red Bird Lane entry. I continue to believe this one is not a close call; I provide additional details below to show why. I need to do this, too, because I made an error in my original entry which a commenter pointed out. I corrected the error in that entry, but I don't think the correction is getting through to readers.
The property owner wants to change the zoning of his property from SF-2 to SF-3. SF-2 and SF-3 have the same minimum lot sizes. This zoning change will not allow the property owner to subdivide his lot into smaller parcels. (That's the error I made in my first entry). Lot size has nothing to do with this case.
The only thing at issue is whether the property owner can build duplexes on his property rather than single-family homes. Here is why this should not be at all controversial (despite the fact that it obviously is to some of the neighbors):
1. The property immediately adjacent to the east is zoned SF-3. The owner of that property can subdivide it at any time and build duplexes on it.
2. One of the two properties immediately across the street is zoned SF-3. The owner of that property can subdivide it at any time and build duplexes on it.
3. The property adjacent to the west, while zoned SF-2, is undeveloped. A duplex will not violate the "character" of an undeveloped lot.
4. The entire neighborhood is in an NP combining district. This means that a secondary apartment special use is permitted as a matter of right. The developer, or any of the surrounding property owners, can build a single-family house and a separate cottage up to 850 sf. It is my understanding that the property next door and one across the street have these secondary dwellings.
5. According to the staff report, the properties to the south (on the back side of the block) are zoned GO-MU-NP (General Office/Mixed Use). Today they contain a child-care facility and beauty salon in addition to a single-family home but could obviously be redeveloped far more intensely at any time.
To summarize, aside from the vacant lot to the west, only one of the adjacent properties, including those immediately across the street, is zoned solely for single-family homes (and, as noted, a secondary, detached apartment is allowed even on that one). This is absolutely the smallest, incremental upzoning possible and it is perfectly consistent with the surrounding uses.
Sorry, this is not a close call even if one ignores the development activity in the area (such as the Bel Air lofts) or its location just one mile south of Ben White. This is why I say this case exemplifies the problems with our zoning process.
A couple of other points. One justification that has been raised is the neighbors' concern that duplexes will invite renters into the neighborhood. The city should not use zoning to regulate the form of tenure. First, the city can't do it; it has no control over whether the owner occupies the property or instead lets it out to rent. Second, the assumption that renters make bad neighbors is false. I have a rental house just a mile or so from this neighborhood (zoned SF-3) with a model tenant. One of the houses across my street is a rental house, as is one two doors down from me; another around the corner is being advertised for rent. They are all good neighbors. Some people rent -- a good thing, as the recent housing collapse shows. There is nothing wrong with renters. The city shouldn't be trying to preserve neighborhoods as a sanctuary for homeowners.
Last, I know the folks in this neighborhood are not the hardcore ANC types. That doesn't mean they have a good case, though.
