The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMiscellaneous .,.:.tJ1I. STAFF REPORT Case No.: 85-108 Applicant: A. P. Boyett, Jr. Request: Rezone from R-2 Duplex to R-5 Apartments Medium D.en s.i ty Location: Lot 1, Block 18, W. C. Boyett (502 Boyett St.) Physic a 1 Feat 11 res: Dimension's: 120' X 170' X40' X 140 ' F rOlltage: 120' Depth: Varies 140' to 170' Area Zoning: North: East: South: West: R-2 R-2 R-2 ( R~6 (across Boyett St.) Existing Land Use: Subject lot.ls residential. Adjacent lots residential. Creek' to the south. Apartments to the west (across Boyett). Land Use ...Plan: Area is reflected as Medium.Density Resid.ential. Engineering: Water: Adequate Sewer.: Adequate Streets: On-street parking would severely limit the ca.paci tyof Boyet tSt reet;Boyet t isnotconst ructed t oeo llect or s taIlc Access: To Boyett - loca.tion anddetailstobe determined at Site Plan Review. FloodPlain: n/a Drainage: Toward creek at rear of lot. Notification: Legal Notice Publication{s}: March 20, 1985 & .April 10,1985 Advertised Commission H~aril1g Date(s): Thursday, April 4, 1985 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: >Thursday, April 25, 1985 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200':17 Response Received: None to date Staff Comments: The request is .in compliance with the land use plan with respect to the type of zoni:ng disttict sought. This lot is part of an area that is p'latted for 'residential use,but is zoned R-2duplex. Rezoning one lot in this block to a multi-family district would have some impact on adjacent lots but would not be inconsistent with uses found throughout this part on the Northgate area. 1 ~ ,rA The appli9antdhasadvisedstaff that this rezoning reqllest has been made in order to pI'ovidefor. redev1eopmentof this lot as a fraternity house . Afr'ate.rni ty house would bE~ a condi tional ,usei>nthiszoningdistrict. The redevelopment of this lot for that purpose is a separate issue and will be addressed as a separate request if the lot is rezoned. P&Z ACTION: The Planning aiid"'Z'oningCommissionrecommended denial of this request on4-4-85by>a vote of 4-0. P&Z MINUTES: AGENDA ITEM NO . 3. 85-108: A public hearing on the ques t ictn of rezontngLot 1 Blo~k lSW. C. Boyett Subdtviston (502 Boyett St.) from Duplex Distr.ictR-2to Apartments MediuDl Density Dis'trict R-5. Application is inthenameofA. P. Boyett, Jr. Mr. .Callaway.pointed . out area. zoning on an aerial photo, explained .the existing area land uses, and further.explainedthatthis area of the City is reflected as Medi umDensi tyResident ialontheapprovedLandUsePlan. He. went on to state that although the request is incompliance with the lalld use plan with r.espect to the type of zoning sought ,rezoning this . one lot in an areawllich is already platted for. residential use and zonedR-2duplE~X, would have some impact on adjacent lots, but would not be inconsistent ~lith uses found throughout this part of th'e Northgate area. Mr. Hansenask'ecl if this lot, if rezoned, would be used for a fraternity house, and Mr. Callaway repliedthatithe applicant has so indicated, but reminded the Commissiort that would be a separate issue, because to develop a plan for a fraterni.ty house,applicationwould have to be made for a ConditionalUsePermi t, slnd the Commission does. review and approve Conditional Use Permit requests. Mr. Martyn asked if on-street parking .at ..this location. would be.. a detriment and Mr. Callaway explained that for whatever use this lot is put in the.futu.re, on-site parking would have to be provided and would, perhaps, be the one~ limiting factor of redevelopment of this lot. Mr. Kaiser.asked about required setbacks inR.-2 andR-5 zoning districts, and Mr.Callaway.~tated that is governed by Table A of the Zoning Ordinance, and to his recollection, the setbacks in those districts are very similar, perhaps within 5 feet. Mr. Kaiser asked what the existing conditions.on this. lot are and Mr. Callaway explained there are 11 OW some encroachments, but a change of zoning classification. would not affect those setbacks. The public hearing was opened. An adjaceIlt landowner, Bran Johnson, 306 Spruce, came forward stating his main concern is whatimpacta.fraternity house or any. allowed use in anH-5 district would have on his home. He requested that the Commission take into consideration that ther.e are still approximately 3 single family dwellings in this inunediatearea, and his question wouldberegfirdingproperty value of those residences should this request be approved. He went on to add that he is neither totally for or against this reques.t, but that he does have some concern regarding the development ofa fraternity house on that lot. Mr. Hansen pointed out that there would be more.publichearingsif that type of development is requested, and perhaps. Mr. Johnson could/develop a firm opinion betweenlnow and .when .that request is heard. Mr. ...Johns6n.agreed, adding that one prol)lem 2 ~, , y"'" lies.. in ...ina.bility to. .get illegally parked cars movedinthisneighborh.ood in the past, and he would not lodk foThlardto >this same type of problem in the future. He stated he also has someconcern.regarding a possible garbage prob>lenr, but added that he realizes that all this has to do with land use anderiforcementrather than'zoning. No one else spoke. Th7 publigheariIlg was closed. Mr. Kaiser asked for clarification of area zoning and uses and Mr. Callaway complied by pointing to locations on the aerial map. . Mr. Martyns tatedthatthisCommiss ion recognizes prob'lems in the Northgate area, and some may say ttbecause some R-6developmentisthere,wecanaddmorett,buthewouldrather take the standttthere'sa>problem in this area, so why add to an existing problemtf. Mr. Hansen said . that ... to put a fraternity house. in the middle of this highly dense area would be poor Pla~llingandcould cause many problems and he does not think. this. is an. appropril:ite area . for. a fraternity house. Mrs.. Tongco stated that there does not a~~ear to be en 0 1).gh land/areafor .thattype of development. Mr. Mart}1Il rem~ndE!d e"eryone that a Ithougha fraternity house is a possibili tyif thislot+s rezoned, . the real question is whether or not this is. a good . area for R-5 . z:9ning.. Size of the lot, parking requirements for R~5develoPlBent,andden~~tyregulationswere discuss~d,with Mr. Kaiser stating finaHythat this re~~t}st would appear torepres7~t an encroachment into a small R-2 zonedarea,!~dwould seem to bea reque~t for "spot zoning"; further, ~hat he is ii~ware of many problems in Northgate, but that from a planning standpoint, ,this request is not a good one. Mr. Kaiser then made amotion to deny this request for rezoning this lot from .R-2toR-5 . for .thereasQIlsstated.above. Mrs. Tongeo.. seconded the motion which carried unanimotlsly(4-0). 3 ENGltlEE RI NG CJse NUn1ber~ICJgJ_ .... ..~....... .... . ......... ..... ... .. .. 7 .) location: ...50.;< . &:pyle-V-. ..0 T I.6LK /~@C.eeAs 7!/ Request ..~. !;?,,*,Aii"irp/2/h . ..... .rE?;<.~~c--<'ff -:,eB-r€~Y1hT<) · ~d~ .. .. ...... ..................................... Q~e<f~*.-- ... Wa te 1"': SeWer: Street Capacity:. p\r.. <a~v~~~~ ~ttC ~q~~ lt~\~ . ~ "0_~H ~~:$~ U i _ ._ _ . ~f-. ~~.h'''v(:-,{.~~ 4-0 CV\\~c...~ ~ ~ & -=Z..l~~ ,~~\l":> ~ 00 J~tkMee1t. cJ- ~J'e..~.~ ~~f~ Drainage:~~~cr-e-~~4t~.~ td- Flood ?lain~tj Spec; al . Feat ures: Or he r = "