HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3537 Staff AnalysisSeptember 30, 1980
Item No. 7 - Z-3537
Owner:
Applicant:
Request:
Purpose:
Existing Zoning:
Location:
Site Characteristics:
Size:
Existing Land Use:
Abutting Land Use
and Zoning:
Zoning History:
Applicable Regulations:
Peyton Rice
Tom Allerd
Rezone to "R-5" Urban Residence
District
Multifamily Development
(Expansion)
"R-3" Single Family
The West 90 Feet of Lot 1,
Block 1, Pulaski Heights
Addition
Developed, Residential
4,116 Sq. Ft. +
Multifamily
North - Multifamily
Zoned "R-5"
South - Multifamily
Zoned "I-2"
East - Single Family
Zoned "I-2"
West - Commercial
Zoned "C-3"
None
Zoning Ordinance
FACTUAL INFORMATION
Item 7
September 30, 1980
1. NEED OR DEMAND
The applicant proposes the construction of one
additional multifamily unit in the garage structure
located on the west side of the property.
.11 2e COMPATIBILITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLANS
The Heights/Hillcrest Plan, now underway, calls for
this area to be multifamily, and there are a number of
multifamily structures existing, including the
principle existing structure on this property.
3. EFFECT ON ENVIRONS
No environmental impacts are anticipated.
4. NEIGHBORHOOD POSITION
Neighbors have expressed concern about any further
development of this property, and there is a continuing
concern about parking in the area.
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
The property is abutted by multifamily zoning on the
north, industrial zoning on the east and south, and
commercial zoning on the west. The planning for this
area shows multifamily zoning for this property.
September 30, 1980
Item 7 - Continued
9. STANDARDS OF QUALITY
No standards have been addressed.
10. TRAFFIC AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
No street right-of-way issues exist; however, the
applicant's survey indicates that the garage structure
proposed for renovation is within the public alley in
this block. This would require consideration at the
time of development.
ANALYSIS:
There are several critical issues attending this case.
First, the existing multifamily development, four units,
exceeds the density permitted in the 11R-5" District;
therefore, an additional unit would require a density
variance. Second, the proposed additional unit is scheduled
for renovation of a structure which sets partially within a
public right-of-way; therefore, a franchise would be
required. Third, the inclusion of an accessory structure
into a principle use means that it too must meet all
Ordinance setbacks; therefore, several separate variances of
setbacks would be required. Fourth, there is every
indication that a parking variance would be required;
therefore, an existing problem would be exacerbated.
In summary, staff does not believe that the wishes of the
applicant can be realized, but because of the existing uses
and zoning patterns within this area, staff has no
opposition to the zoning requested.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION;
Staff recommends approval.
COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there was one objector. The
applicant discussed the proposal briefly, and the objector
spoke in opposition to the zoning, citing traffic and
parking problems in the neighborhood. The Commission moved
to defer action on this proposal, and there was no second to
the motion. Finally, the Commission moved to approve the
application as filed. The motion failed - 0 ayes, 10 noes,
1 absent. The application was declared to have been denied.