Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4273 Staff Analysis (2)July 24, 1984 Item No. 11 - Z-4273 Owner: Joe A. Powell Sr. Applicant: Same Location: 715 North Van Buren Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "R-5" Urban Residence Purpose: Multifamily, 4 Units Size: 70,000 square feet Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to utilize property for four multifamily units. There is currently a vacant single family residence lot and it is unknown whether the structure will be converted or removed and a new building constructed. The property is located in a block that is totally occupied by single family units and the approval of this request would permit the only multifamily development south of "G" Street to Lee. The area appears to a very stable single family neighborhood and "R-5" rezoning would be an undesirable intrusion into the neighborhood. On the block to the north, there are two multifamily developments and a commercial use. Those properties are zoned "MF -24," 110-3" and "C-3," but even on those blocks the primary use is single family. On the northwest corner of "F" and Van Buren, there is a nonconforming commercial use. South of "G" Street the only zoning in place other than "R-2" are some "R-4" lots and those are being used for single family units. The residence on the property in question is in good condition and should continue to be utilized for a single family unit. Allowing the lot to be developed as proposed, the multifamily units will have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and should not be supported by approving this request. July 24, 1984 Item No. 11 - Continued 2. The site is a typical residential lot with one residence on it and an accessory building to the rear. 3. There are no right of way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. One legal issue attendant to this request is spot zoning. 6. There is documented history on the site. Staff has received some calls in opposition to the request. 7. The rezoning is not supported by the Heights/Hillcrest Plan and staff is opposed to it. If approved, the request would create a spot zoning and permit the first multifamily development south of "G" Street. The neighborhood is primarily owner occupied single family units and should not be imposed on by allowing a higher density on one lot. The use is incompatible with the immediate area and would place some hardships on the neighborhood. The stability of the area should be maintained by denying the "R-5" rezoning. There is also some question as to whether the property can adequately accommodate the required off-street parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Mr. Ward. There were approximately 15 persons in attendance objecting to the rezoning. Mr. Ward spoke at length about the staff's recommendation and requested that the item be deferred to give the applicant more time to respond to the comments made in the staff's analysis. Leslie Ablondi of 701 Van Buren asked that the matter be heard and not deferred for 30 days. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item. The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 8 noes and 1 absent. Mr. Ward spoke again and described land use in the area and the proposed project. He. stated that it would be a town house design with adequate parking and access would be provided from the alley. Mr. Ward also indicated that the project would upgrade the neighborhood and that the cost to renovate the existing structure would be close to $30,000. There was additional discussion about the renovation cost. July 24, 1984 Item No. 11 - Continued Robert Bailey, an architect for the applicant, spoke and described the condition of the property. He said that the interior was very deteriorated and that it would be expensive to upgrade. He also added that the design of the proposed project would not detract from the neighborhood. Several commissioners questioned Mr. Bailey as to whether the project was appropriate land use for the neighborhood. Mr. Ablondi spoke again and presented petitions from the neighborhood opposing the request. He objected to the rezoning and described the area as a stable single family neighborhood. Mr. Ablondi felt that the structures were ideal for rehabilitation and that it would be done. He said that the existing duplexes had been in place for years, and he was also concerned with adding additional traffic to the area. Milton Wells objected to the rezoning and described the area as a single family neighborhood. Harry Williams spoke against the request and read a letter he had submitted to the Planning Commission. He was concerned with traffic and property values. Rick Lewis, representing the owner, then spoke. He said that the structure was in poor condition and that a brand new building would add to the neighborhood. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request. The motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote. The vote: 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. The request was denied. July 24, 1984 Item No. 11 - Z-4273 Owner: Joe A. Powell Sr. Applicant: Same Location: 715 North Van Buren Request: Rezone from "R-2" Single Family to "R-5" Urban Residence Purpose: Multifamily, 4 Units Size: 7,000 square feet Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to utilize property for four multifamily units. There is currently a vacant single family residence lot and it is unknown whether the structure will be converted or removed and a new building constructed. The property is located in a block that is totally occupied by single family units and the approval of this request would permit the only multifamily development south of "G" Street to Lee. The area appears to a very stable single family neighborhood and "R-5" rezoning would be an undesirable intrusion into the neighborhood. On the block to the north, there are two multifamily developments and a commercial use. Those properties are zoned "MF -24," "0-3" and "C-3," but even on those blocks the primary use is single family. On the northwest corner of "F" and Van Buren, there is a nonconforming commercial use. South of "G" Street the only zoning in place other than "R-2" are some "R-4" lots and those are being used for single family units. The residence on the property in question is in good condition and should continue to be utilized for a single family unit. Allowing the lot to be developed as proposed, the multifamily units will have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and should not be supported by approving this request. July 24, 1984 Item No. 11 - Continued 2. The site is a typical residential lot with one 7. The rezoning is not supported by the Heights/Hillcrest Plan and staff is opposed to it. If approved, the request would create a spot zoning and permit the first multifamily development south of "G" Street. The neighborhood is primarily owner occupied single family units and should not be imposed on by allowing a higher density on one lot. The use is incompatible with the immediate area and would place some hardships on the neighborhood. The stability of the area should be maintained by denying the "R-5" rezoning. There is also some question as to whether the property can adequately accommodate the required off-street parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Mr. Ward. There were approximately 15 persons in attendance objecting to the rezoning. Mr. Ward spoke at length about the staff's recommendation and requested that the item be deferred to give the applicant more time to respond to the comments made in the staff's analysis. Leslie Ablondi of 701 Van Buren asked that the matter be heard and not deferred for 30 days. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item. The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 8 noes and 1 absent. Mr. Ward spoke again and described land use in the area and the proposed project. He stated that it would be a town house design with adequate parking and access would be provided from the alley. Mr. Ward also indicated that the project would upgrade the neighborhood and that the cost to renovate the existing structure would be close to $30,000. There was additional discussion about the renovation cost. residence on it and an accessory building to the rear. 3. There are no right of way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies as of this writing. 5. One legal issue attendant to this request is spot zoning. 6. There is documented history on the site. Staff has received some calls in opposition to the request. 7. The rezoning is not supported by the Heights/Hillcrest Plan and staff is opposed to it. If approved, the request would create a spot zoning and permit the first multifamily development south of "G" Street. The neighborhood is primarily owner occupied single family units and should not be imposed on by allowing a higher density on one lot. The use is incompatible with the immediate area and would place some hardships on the neighborhood. The stability of the area should be maintained by denying the "R-5" rezoning. There is also some question as to whether the property can adequately accommodate the required off-street parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Mr. Ward. There were approximately 15 persons in attendance objecting to the rezoning. Mr. Ward spoke at length about the staff's recommendation and requested that the item be deferred to give the applicant more time to respond to the comments made in the staff's analysis. Leslie Ablondi of 701 Van Buren asked that the matter be heard and not deferred for 30 days. A motion was made and seconded to defer the item. The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 8 noes and 1 absent. Mr. Ward spoke again and described land use in the area and the proposed project. He stated that it would be a town house design with adequate parking and access would be provided from the alley. Mr. Ward also indicated that the project would upgrade the neighborhood and that the cost to renovate the existing structure would be close to $30,000. There was additional discussion about the renovation cost. July 24, 1984 Item No. 11 - Continued Robert Bailey, an architect for the applicant, spoke and described the condition of the property. He said that the interior was very deteriorated and that it would be expensive to upgrade. He also added that the design of the proposed project would not detract from the neighborhood. Several commissioners questioned Mr. Bailey as to whether the project was appropriate land use for the neighborhood. Mr. Ablondi spoke again and presented petitions from the neighborhood opposing the request. He objected to the rezoning and described the area as a stable single family neighborhood. Mr. Ablondi felt that the structures were ideal for rehabilitation and that it would be done. He said that the existing duplexes had been in place for years, and he was also concerned with adding additional traffic to the area. Milton Wells objected to the rezoning and described the area as a single family neighborhood. Harry Williams spoke against the request and read a letter he had submitted to the Planning Commission. He was concerned with traffic and property values. Rick Lewis, representing the owner, then spoke. He said that the structure was in poor condition and that a brand new building would add to the neighborhood. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request. The motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote. The vote: 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. The request was denied.