Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA004 - Staff report of March 5, 1976 • CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 5, 1976 REZONING REQUEST: Z 76-1 From C-2 (General Commercial) to R-4 (Multiple Family Dwelling) APPLICANT: Mary L. Carr, et al. (see attached petition) HEARING DATE: March 12, 1976 LOCATION: South Washington Avenue, South Third Street, and South Fourth Street (see attached map) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (see attached list) EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USES: The area is presently zoned C-2; the zoning being a remnant from the 1965 Comprehensive Plan and zoning pattern adopted at that time. At that time, the entire area south of Lincoln Way to South Third Street, and west of South Duff to Washington (north of South Fifth Street) was zoned C-2. In 1971, the three blocks bounded by South Second, South Third, Walnut and Sherman were rezoned to R-3 at the request of a majority of the property owners in the area. Excepted from this rezoning • was the property at Washington and South Third, including the electric substation and the commercial building. In 1974, that same area was rezoned to R-4. In addition, three lots on South Fifth Street were rezoned to R-4 in 1972 and now are the site of the South Meadows Apartments. The result of these actions was the projection of C-2 zoned property into the residen- tially zoned area which was established. The area involved in this petition constitutes the bulk of this projection. The area includes 22 properties, the uses of which are broken down as follows: Single Family Homes: 18 Two Family Dwellings: 3 Vacant: 1 The area is decidedly single family in nature and in our opinion was wrongly overlooked in the rezoning actions which partially remedied the mistakes of 1965. PROPOSED ZONING AND LAND USES: The people of the neighborhood who have signed the petition for rezoning and the petition of support for the request (which will be presented at the meeting) believe that their area is a stable residen- tial neighborhood and should be encouraged to remain as such. Residential zoning is seen as one form of such encouragement. The zoning being requested is R-4 primarily because of the classification of the surrounding area. There has been and will be discussion of instituting the Neighborhood Planning Pro- gram in the area, which conceivably could generate a request for a lower • density designation. 2 • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: The proposed 1995 Comprehensive Plan designates the area for high density residential development. This designation appears to be largely a result of the 1974 and 1972 rezoning actions to R-4. It should be pointed out, however, that a land use and structural conditions survey of the entire area was conducted by the staff prior to the 1974 rezoning of the three block area which indicated that the great majority of structures are well kept, owner occupied., single family homes. On that basis, the staff recommended against the 1974 rezoning. This is still the case, particularly in the area covered by this petition, and the area has, in fact, improved in recent years. Therefore, we believe there probably is some reason to doubt the prudence of the plan designation as proposed. Perhaps this issue should be considered at this time as well. REASONS FOR THE REQUEST: The initial suggestion that this petition be filed came from this office in response to an inquiry by Mrs. Carr on February S. At that time, Mrs. Carr expressed concern relative to the impending construction of a commercial building, a warehouse, at 316 South Third Street on land owned by Finesse Beauty Salons, Inc. She was surprised to learn that her residential neighborhood was commercially zoned and had been for ten years. Mrs. Carr, who lives at 304 Washington, Mrs. Amanda Hess of 312 South Third, and Mr. and Mrs. Richard Merritt of 311 South Third, all neighbors of the 316 South Third property, met with members of the staff at the Depot on February 9. Once it was understood that the impending use was a much delayed product of a zoning decision made in 1965 and not of a recent rezoning made without resident notification, discussion turned to possible courses of action which could be • taken to mitigate the concerns of the neighborhood. These concerns are two-fold. First, the neighborhood is desirous of halting, if at all possible, the con- struction of the Finesse storage building. Second, any future encroachment of commercial uses into the neighborhood is not desired. The situation concerning the building permit issued to Marian Lokken for the storage building at 316 South Third was the immediate concern. The issue of side yards of the structure, assuming that it would be constructed, was con- sidered by the staff to be important with respect to the structure's impact on the neighborhood. This led to an inquiry of the City Attorney as to what the requirements for side yards in the C-2 district are. Mr. Klaus' memorandum to the staff expressing his opinion, and Mr. Switz's memorandum to the Acting City Manager calling the situation to his attention and to the attention of the City Council are attached. At its meeting of March 2, the Council discussed the issue, including the possibility of revocation of the building permit. Al- though no definite decision was made, the Council did not seem disposed to revoke the permit. A petition asking the City to revoke the permit is present- ly being circulated and will be filed with the City Clerk. The petition is based upon the contention that the City has the responsibility for enforcing its ordinances as they are in effect and as they are applicable under legal interpretation. Revocation would probably result in a suit being filed against the City, and failure to revoke could result in a suit by the neighborhood against the City, or an effort by the neighborhood to enjoin Mrs. Lokken from constructing the building. The Council did pass a motion that no further zoning or building • permits be issued in the C-2 district without the side yard, and that a recommended side yard requirement be presented to Council on March 16. Our opinions concerning side yards in the C-2 district will be presented in a separate report. 3 • Concerning future prevention of commercial encroachment, the possibility of a rezoning petition was broached by the staff as a way of quickly and officially bringing the concerns of the neighborhood to the attention of the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The possibility was discussed further at a meeting in the neighborhood on February 10, attended by two staff members. Although no false hopes were raised, it was decided at that meeting that a re- zoning petition for the block bounded by South Third, Washington, and South Fourth, and the south side of South Fourth, asking rezoning from C-2 to R-4, would be prepared and filed. The eastern boundary would be determined by the results of the petition circulation. The petition was submitted with signatures of 16 of the 22 properties, representing 740 of the private land area involved. The properties not represented by signatures are indicated on the rezoning re- quest map with the symbol "X". PHILOSOPHY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The content of this staff report differs some- what from the normal technical report. It does so because we are not concerned here with new development or subdivision; we are not concerned with building design or site plans; and we are not concerned with traffic, utilities, or school enrollment generated. Rather, we are concerned with development which already exists; which predates planning and zoning in this community; and we are attempting to make the proper application of the land use regulations available to us in accordance with our philosophy of planning and community development. An important element of our philosophy is that citizen participation in the development of goals, strategies, and policies, is essential to a sound plan- ning and development program which will be implemented with the support of the citizenry. This is particularly true at the neighborhood level. The future is not created by tomorrow's decisions; rather, the future is created by today's decisions. The future of a neighborhood should, in large part, be determined by continuing participation in the process of goal setting and strategy and policy development. This is why members of the staff have felt it important to become involved in assisting the people of the Washington Avenue neighborhood in becoming educated to the processes which affect them, and to assume a role of advocates for the residents in view of their past lack of consideration or involvement. In the particular situation, with which we are concerned, the Plan Commission and City Council, apparently with little citizen input, assumed in 1965 that the entire area south of Lincoln Way and west of South Duff would undergo a transformation from residential to commercial use. Responding to limited citizen input in one portion, and the proposed development of raw flood plain, parts of the area have been returned to high density residential zoning. We feel that there was a basic failure to accurately perceive the nature of the process of change in this area. The anticipated commercial boom did not materialize even though decline was encouraged through the non-conforming status of single family homes in a commercial district. (The non-conforming status prevented the improvement of residential structures, other than basic maintenance.) That decline has not materialized and, in fact, had there been a greater citizen input in past decisions, the present situation would not now be before us. • i I 4 • A method has been developed in Ames to help obtain citizen input at the neigh- borhood level in the development of goals, strategies, and policies; and to enable a stronger voice in today's decisions, which will create the future of neighborhoods. This method is called the Neighborhood Planning Program, and the Commission is familiar with its recent development. The property owners who have petitioned for this rezoning are forming a neighborhood organization both for the initial purpose of promoting their petition and for the subsequent instigation of a Neighborhood Planning Program to go beyond this beginning effort and toward continuing participation. The possibility exists for expan- sion of this organization to encompass the entire area bounded by Lincoln Way on the north, South Fifth Street on the south, South Duff Avenue on the east and Department of Transportation property on the west. The primary reason for conducting a Neighborhood Planning Program in this area would be to propose a means for preserving the residential character of the area. The desired future for the area can be determined through input from the area residents. The desired future can be determined and applied to the planning process and a goal established. Once the goal is established, in this case residential preservation, the strategy and policies can be determined for goal accomplishment. The planning process for this area is not only a process of change, but more a process of preservation. Thus, preservation becomes an important process not only for this area, but for the entire community. In summary, a serious injustice was done to this area in 1965, and was only partially remedied by the rezonings of 1971 and 1974. This is a residential area and should be residentially zoned. We are recommending the most expedient • classification, R-4, to prevent further commercial encroachment into the area. Even so, if the warehouse is constructed, one non-conforming use will be created. The small commercial development north of South Third Street is not included in the petition, and we see no particular advantage to its inclusion, nor its exclusion, since it is developed to its maximum feasible intensity. Our recommendations are stated as follows: 1. Recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning as requested. 2. Encourage the Neighborhood Planning Program in this area so that a participative structure may determine the goals for the future of the area and strategies to achieve them to be reflected in the Comprehensive Plan and the future application of the Development Code. dw • Fr `M� C-2 To: R-4 REZONING RE�jUEST o too lAw 4wv HEARING DATE: March 12, 1976 NORTH PETITIONER: Mary Carr ftftNWMW.W.REZONING REQUEST AREA LOCATION: Area bounded by South ............••••• LEGAL PROTEST AREA Third, Washington, and South Fourth Streets ZONING DISTRICT LINE UD JCw U LJr` U �­ v ll�� Q�Ml6. vtitD�. IQL -SOOOLN 1F _M) Ej C.V' D-z r 7 in C-2 i 0 �] > 0�1- - � o � _ Q R J C Q , Oi a D .�... .. .�........ ......... . .�R:z_. . C p 1 L:.f" D ❑ W O D Lij Dp Y [21D F V}thy ®D ® i� 1 • L)7 EL 1 C3 j D-e- J _ TA. QD ST. • KKK © W 134 �.:.:.<. 1 4 Q D b T. .... ...................... C D I • s -ice p� d D v - d .�• A� v ••• ` ............ ~...........N •.•