Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5665 Staff AnalysisApril 20, 1993 ITEM NO.-: D Z-5665 Is Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Beverly Dickson Beverly Dickson 6213 and 6223 Lancaster Road Rezone from R-2 to R-5 Multifamily 0..69 acres Single -Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Single -Family, zoned R-2 South - Single -Family, zoned R-2 East - Vacant, zoned R-2 West - Single -Family, zoned R-2 STAFF ANALYSIS The property in question, 6213 and 6223 Lancaster, has two detached single family residences on it, and the owner would like to convert an accessory dwelling into a dwelling unit. Because of the two existing houses on the one lot, a rezoning to R-5 has been requested to allow the third unit. The conditional use permit process for an accessory dwelling cannot be used in this situation because the lot already has two residences, and the ordinance requires that one dwelling unit must be occupied by the owner. Therefore, a reclassi- fication is needed to permit the three units, even though the proposal is for three detached structures and not the conventional arrangement of attached multifamily units. Zoning found in the general vicinity of Lancaster and West 65th Street is R-2, R-5, 0-3, C-3, C-4, I-2 and OS. There is R-5 land on Lancaster, south of the site under consideration, however, the two lots are occupied by single family residences. At this time, a majority of the R-5 zoning is along Butler Road where there is a concentration of multifamily units. The nonresidential zoned properties are adjacent to West 65th, with the exception of an 0-3 parcel that fronts Lancaster. Land use is similar to the existing zoning and includes single family, multifamily, a church and various types of commercial uses. Along Lancaster, there is a commercial user at West 65th Street and a nonconforming use, an eating place, north of 6213 and 6223 Lancaster. All of the other lots adjacent to Lancaster are either single family or vacant. April 20, 1993 ITEM NO.: D Z-5665 Cont. The proposed R-5 zoning is in conflict with the adopted plan, 65th Street East, and the staff does not support the request. The plan's multifamily line is to the south of the property under consideration and it is our position that the recommended land use boundary should be maintained. Approving the R-5 could create additional problems for the neighborhood, which has already been impacted by some of the R-5 sites found along Butler Road. Another concern is that a R-5 reclassification could allow up to 15 units based on the lot size, 30,000 square feet, and the land area per family requirement in R-5. A large number of units on a single tract could create a very undesirable living environment for the property, and spill over into the neighborhood. Adding a third dwelling on the site is not unreasonable, however, staff feels that a R-5 rezoning is not in the best interest of the neighborhood. options that could limit the number of units should be considered such as a PRD or replatting a tract into two lots, and then the additional unit could possibly be an accessory dwelling providing that it meets all of the ordinance requirements. LAND ❑5E PLAN ELEMENT The proposed multifamily zoning is to the north of a designated multifamily area (not adjacent). The plan calls for single family. The city's actions should not encourage the intrusion of multifamily into a stable single family area. Development should be kept to a low density in order to protect the existing development. ENGINEERING COMMENTS There are none to be reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the R-5 rezoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 23, 1993) The applicant, Beverly Dickson, was present. There were two objectors in attendance. Ms. Dickson spoke and reviewed her request. She said that all she wanted to do was convert the accessory structure into a third dwelling unit, and was not 2 April 20, 1993 TTBM N D Z-5665 II interested -in an apartment type development. Ms. Dickson went on to describe the property and then answered some questions. There were some comments made about various issues, including utilizing the PRD process for the project. Anne Johnston, representing the Wakefield Neighborhood Association, described the neighborhood and said there were too many apartments in the area now. Ms. Johnston voiced her concerns with the density that R-5 allows, and asked the Commission to avoid rezoning the site to R-5. Tammy Ashley, a resident of the neighborhood, said that adding the third unit did not present a problem, but the real concern was the R-5 request and objected to the rezoning. Comments were then offered by various individuals, including Richard Wood, Department of Neighborhoods and Planning staff, who discussed replatting the property and street improvements. Beverly Dickson spoke again and told the Commission that she only wants to use the accessory building for a third dwelling unit. Ms. Dickson said she was not interested in having a number of units on the property. After some additional comments, Beverly Dickson agreed to a deferral of the request. A motion was made to defer the item to the April 20, 1993. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant has amended to request from R-5 to a PRD for three (3) dwelling units. The site plan was reviewed with the Subdivision Committee and no issues were raised. The following waivers have been requested: 1. Street improvements 2. Paved parking 3. Additional filing fees for the PRD 4. A second notification of the property owners Staff supports the PRD and the waivers. 3 April 20, 1993 ITEM N D -(Cont.) PLANNING CQMMIS-ItiN ACTION: (APRIL 20, 1993) The applicant, Beverly Dickson, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Staff reported that Ms. Dickson had submitted a letter requesting that her application be amended to a PRD for three (3) units. Staff also stated Ms. Dickson was requesting a waiver of street improvements, additional filing fees and notification of the property owners for the PRD. Staff informed the Commission that the necessary site plan was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee. Beverly Dickson spoke and verbally amended her request to a PRD for three (3) units. Ms. Dickson made some additional comments. A motion was made to recommend approval of the PRD for three (3) units and the requested waivers. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. 4