Mr. Mygatt recently obtained this lot and seeks to rezone it to construct a single, two-family dwelling (duplex) as a rental property. The 100 foot by 153-foot lot has been zoned commercial since the mid-1960’s but has been vacant for more than 20 years. He feels the property has no commercial value due to its smaller size. The lot is relatively level, with slight slope to the east; its grass covered with a few trees along its southern edge.
There are restaurants to the west, south and north (across 3rd Street) from the lot, and single-family homes to the east.
The Proposal’s Consistency with Independence for All, Strategic Plan:
This rezoning, and the subsequent development of a duplex, would help fill a market need for new housing units in the city.
Comprehensive Plan Guiding Land Use Principles for the Current Designation:
The City Comprehensive Plan recommends Residential Neighborhood for this site. The plan mentions that residential neighborhoods may consist of a mixture of single-family homes, attached homes, townhomes, condominiums, and multifamily units.
Historic and Archeological Sites:
There are no apparent historic/archeological issues with this property.
Water, sanitary sewer, and electrical service are either on, or available to, the property.
Recommendations and decisions on rezoning applications must be based on consideration of all the following criteria:
1. Conformance of the requested zoning with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan envisions Neighborhood Residential uses for this site.
2. Conformance of the requested zoning with any adopted neighborhood or sub-area plans in which the property is located or abuts.
There are no neighborhood or sub-area plans for this area.
3. The compatibility of the proposed zoning with the zoning and use of nearby property, including any overlay zoning.
The proposed zoning can serve as a segue between the commercial property on the north, south, and west and the single-family homes to the east.
4. The compatibility of the proposed zoning and allowed uses with the character of the neighborhood.
The proposed zoning and its corresponding uses of single- and two-family residential uses is more compatible here than most commercial uses with the current C-2 zoning.
5. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted under the existing zoning regulations.
Considering its location along a side street, and its modest size, it has little potential commercial use which is evident by its long period of vacancy.
6. The length of time the subject property has remained vacant as zoned.
The property has been vacant for over 20 years due in part to its locale on a non-thoroughfare street.
7. The extent to which approving the rezoning will detrimentally affect nearby properties.
This specific rezoning classification will have minimal negative effect on area properties.
8. The gain, if any, to the public health, safety, and welfare due to denial of the application, as compared to the hardship imposed upon the landowner, if any, as a result of denial of the application.
If the rezoning is denied, it would have a negative financial effect on the owner as he will not be able to construct a duplex on the site as planned.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes:
"Case #21-100-06 – Rezoning – 16403 E. 3rd Street N
Stuart Borders presented the case. Mr. Borders presented the Commission with a vicinity map, noting the area and surrounding zoning. He presented the Commission with an aerial map indicating the project area and explained the surrounding land uses.
In response to Commissioner Weir’s question, Mr. Borders stated he believes the only change for nearby businesses would be that if applying for a liquor license, they’d have to receive super majority for approval.
In response to Commissioner Preston’s question, Mr. Borders stated he is not aware of any past commercial use on this property.
Joshua Mygatt, 1908 N. Ponca Dr, stated he is planning to put a basic duplex on this property which will match the neighborhood. He stated the property is not big enough for a commercial business to have parking.
In response to Commissioner Preston’s question, Mr. Mygatt stated he closed on the property in February.
No public comments.
Commissioner Preston made a motion to approve Case #21-100-06 – Rezoning – 16403 E. 3rd St N. Commissioner Wiley seconded the motion. The motion passed with seven affirmative votes."