Commission denies rezoning request for three lots on East Hoops Avenue after neighbor concerns

The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on a request to rezone three platted lots (approximately 0.52 acre total) at the eastern terminus of East Hoops Avenue from single‑family Suburban to two‑family (duplex) residential.

Staff reported the lots were platted in 1909, annexed in 1965 and currently zoned single‑family Suburban. Staff recommended denial because the proposed two‑family zoning is inconsistent with the Aspire 2040 future land use map’s Suburban Residential designation, and the applicant had not submitted a concurrent comprehensive‑plan amendment with the application.

The applicant, identified in the record as shimy AAR, representing Charm Holdings LLC with Ela AAR present, said the change would allow removal of deteriorated structures, put the properties to productive use and create duplexes similar in character to nearby multifamily buildings. The applicant said the owner is paying full property tax on the three lots while only two lots are usable today.

Nearby residents who addressed the commission during public comment urged denial. Ashley Walcott, who lives directly behind the site, said privacy and child safety were her chief concerns and asked that any replacement development be limited to single‑story units. "I don't want two‑story buildings behind us," she said. Michael Mur, another neighbor, said he supported more housing generally but asked whether infrastructure and drainage improvements would accompany additional units; he also described nuisance uses on the site that affect neighbors. Several speakers, including Mike Martin and Robert found, warned about the precedent a rezoning would set in the historic Oldtown neighborhood and urged denial or consideration of a variance instead of rezoning.

During the discussion commissioners confirmed that the existing single‑family zoning does allow two‑story homes (height limits apply) and that the commission cannot place conditions (such as single‑story only) on zoning approvals. Staff described the applicant's option to apply for a comprehensive‑plan amendment, which follows a separate public process and goes to city council for a final decision.

A commissioner moved to "deny the staff recommendation"; the motion was seconded and passed by voice vote. The meeting transcript records confusion among commissioners about the motion wording on the floor; commissioners later clarified intent and the chair announced the action. The transcript does not record a roll‑call tally. The meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m.

The rezoning request will not proceed; staff or the applicant may pursue a comprehensive‑plan amendment or submit a revised application.