HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3445 Staff Analysisr
April 29, 1980
Item No. -2--- Z-3445 - DEFERRED
Owner:
Applicant:
Request:
Purpose:
Existing Zoning:
Location:
Site Characteristics:
Size:
Existing Land Use:
Abutting Land Use
and Zoning:
Zoning History:
Applicable Regulations:
Martha Johnson
Norman Holcomb
Rezone to "R-5" Urban Residence
Multifamily Development
"R-3" Single Family
416 N. Pierce Street
Developed, Urban
13,375 Sq. Ft. +
Single Family
North - Vacant
Zoned "0-3"
South - Single Family
Zoned "R-3"
East - Single Family
Zoned "R-3"
West - Single Family
Zoned "R-3"
None
Zoning Ordinance
FACTUAL INFORMATION
April 29, 1980
Item 2
I. NEED AND/OR DEMAND
The applicant states the intention to construct multifamily
residential units on this property if the zoning is
approved.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLANS
Though no up-to-date plan exists for this area of the City,
there are many multifamily dwellings nearby, and this
request appears compatible.
3. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS
Pierce Street at this location is very narrow, and traffic
flow is often impeded. Neighbors complain that parking in
the area is also a problem, partially because of the large
number of apartments within the area. The proposed
development would be required to provide 1.5 parking spaces
per unit. Many neighbors have complained of the congestion
within the street system all around this area.
4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION
Several neighbors have spoken against the application
primarily because of the expected traffic impact. Long-time
residents of the area have expressed concern over the
transition of the neighborhood from single family to
multifamily, stating their belief that the change decreases
neiqhborhood stability.
5. PUBLIC SERVICES/EFFECT ON
No particular adverse impact is expected.
6. UTILITIES/EFFECT ON
No adverse comments have been received.
7. EFFECT ON PUBLIC FINANCES
No particular fiscal impacts are expected from this
proposal.
April 29, 1980
Item 2 - Continued
8. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS/REASONABLENESS
The property abuts a vacant office tract to the north,
and it is expected that this district will be
"downzoned" to "R-5" in conjunction with incorporation
of a simultaneous venture on both properties. The mopt
abundant land use in the immediate area is single
family. There are several multifamily dwellings to the
south and east.
9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY
No standards of quality have been addressed.
10. TRAFFIC AND STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
Again, Pierce Street is very narrow, having only a 25
foot right-of-way. The Master Street Plan calls for a
50 foot right-of-way, and City records show that all of
the existing right-of-way was dedicated from the
property lying east of Pierce Street. The owner of
this property has agreed to dedicate the necessary 25
feet and construct the necessary street improvements.
ANALYSIS:
The original write-up indicated that even the street
improvements to be provided by the applicant would not be
adequate to effectively solve the traffic problems on Pierce
St. In light of the statements made by staff in the earlier
recommendation, the applicant has achieved a working
agreement with the neighboring owner to the north whereby
they would provide the required 25 foot dedication along
both properties on Pierce and provide the necessary street
improvements on the west side. This would be in conjunction
with simultaneous development of both parcels for
multifamily use.
Staff prefers that this "joint" project be designed to
provide primary access from Lee St. rather than Pierce St.
so as to reduce some of the traffic demand on Pierce St.
The expectation that some relief to Pierce St. can be
provided, combined with the proposed
property on the southwest corner of
leads staff to believe that rational
place.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends approval.
"downzoning" of the
Lee and Pierce Streets,
improvement can take
April 29, 1980
Item No. 2 - Continued
COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant's attorney was present and requested that the
Commission defer consideration of this case for one more
month to allow the finalization of the legal documents
necessary to effect the agreement between his client and the
neighboring property owner to the north. The staff
recommended that this deferral be granted for that purpose.
The Commission moved to defer consideration of this case to
May. The motion was passed: 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.