HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3536 Staff AnalysisSeptember 30, 1980
Item No. 6 - Z-3536
Owner:
Fred Wright and Carolyn Mabrey
Applicant:
Pete Hornibrook
Request:
Rezone to "MF -24" Multifamily
Purpose:
Multifamily Construction
Existing Zoning:
"R-2" Single Family
Location:
Northwest Corner - West Capitol
at Maple Street
Site Characteristics:
Level
Size:
15,335 Sq. Ft. +
Existing Land Use:
Vacant - One Abandoned Structure
Abutting Land Use
North - Single Family
and Zoning;
Zoned "R-211.
South - Single Family
Zoned "R-2"
East - Single Family
Zoned "R-2"
West - Single Family
Zoned "R-2"
Zoning History:
Property denied "E-1" Quiet
Business in 1979.
Applicable Regulations:
Zoning Ordinance
FACTUAL INFORMATION
Item 6
September 30, 1980
1. NEED OR DEMAND
The proposal would permit the construction of an
apartment building to provide housing for people from
the Medical Center area.
2. COMPATIBILITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLANS
This property is within the Woodruff Neighborhood Plan
recently adopted by the City Board. That plan calls
for this area to remain single family, and there is no
multifamily shown in this area at all.
3. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS
Presumably, no particular environmental impact would
occur as the result of this proposal.
4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION
Neighbors have expressed opposition to the proposed
rezoning of this property, and there is a petition
already filed stating that opposition.
5. PUBLIC SERVICES
No adverse comments have been received.
6. UTILITIES/EFFECT ON
No adverse comments have been received.
7. EFFECT ON PUBLIC FINANCES
None expected.
8. LEGAL/REASONABLE
In the classic sense, this proposal constitutes "spot
zoning. There is no multifamily zoning in the area,
and there is no multifamily development either.
September 30, 1980
Item 6 - Continued
9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY
No standards have been addressed.
10. TRAFFIC AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
There are no right-of-way issues. Several residents of
the area have expressed concern about the traffic
impact of the proposal, specifically, as related to
parking. On-site parking would be required at the rate
of 1.5 spaces per unit. Staff estimates that a maximum
of 10 units could be constructed on this site, and the
traffic generated by this proposal would be minimal in
terms of the impact on the neighborhood, especially in
view of the major development taking place at the
Medical Center.
ANALYSIS:
The key element regarding the proposal is the Woodruff
Neighborhood Plan. The -area is reasonably stable as a
single family neighborhood, and there appears to be no
desire for change or any indication that change may be
forthcoming. The lots within this property are narrow,
measuring 46.3 feet in width, which makes conventional
single family development difficult largely as a result of
modern housing styles.
Realizing the difficulties in developing single family
houses on infill sites, staff would propose the following
exchange:
1. Replatting of the three lots into two lots with each
having about 70 feet of frontage on Capitol Avenue.
2. Development of two duplexes, one on each of the newly
created lots.
The replatting proposed can be accomplished as a staff
action under the recombination procedures within the
Subdivision Ordinance. The construction of two duplexes
would provide the slight density increase necessary to
assure the economy of the development, and the impact of the
duplex development would not damage the integrity of the
Woodruff Neighborhood Plan. Duplexes are conditional use in
the the "R-3" District; therefore, no zoning change would be
required. r
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial.
September 30, 1980
Item 6 - Continued
COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were some objectors.
The owner, Fred Wright, made a brief presentation arguing
for approval of the zoning requested. He was followed by
Tom Holmes who is planning to purchase the property and do
the actual development. A lengthy discussion ensued
regarding the Woodruff Neighborhood CDBG Plan. David Elms,
chairman of the Woodruff Neighborhood Committee, made a
lengthy plea that the Woodruff Plan as adopted be followed,
citing the fact that some nine months worth of citizen and
staff activity had gone into the effort. After further
discussion, the Planning Commission moved to defer action on
this case to October 28. The motion was passed - 8 ayes,
2 noes and 1 absent.