Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears petition to rezone 150 E. 32nd St. from C‑2 to R‑4 with conditional overlay
Summary
Planning staff described a petition to rezone a roughly one‑acre site at 150 East 32nd Street from commercial (C‑2) to residential (R‑4) with a conditional overlay limiting development to fee‑simple row houses; the planning commission recommended approval with a development agreement.
City planning staff presented a petition to rezone the property at 150 East 32nd Street from C‑2 commercial to R‑4 residential with a conditional overlay at the council work session on Jan. 21.
The petitioner is David Anderson. The parcel covers about 43,000 square feet (roughly one acre) in the Jefferson community, adjacent to a tire store to the west and single‑family homes to the south. Planning staff said a conditional overlay would limit development to single‑family row houses subdivided for individual ownership and would be accompanied by a development agreement.
Nut graf: The planning commission recommended approval. Staff said the request responds to long‑term neighborhood goals to encourage homeownership and to provide a context‑sensitive transition from commercial to residential uses; one planning commissioner filed a minority view citing the area’s existing commercial character.
Planner Barton (planning staff) said the Jefferson Community Plan and long‑range street plan factor into the recommendation: 32nd Street is scheduled for reconfiguration in the long‑range plan, staff noted, and the parcel is a secondary commercial site that may be better suited for residential transition. Barton added that a recent zoning code change removed multifamily as a permitted use in the C‑2 zone, which shaped the present rezoning approach.
Councilors asked detailed questions. Council Member Hayer asked whether a concept plan was submitted; staff responded that the concept showed roughly 18–20 rear‑loaded townhomes, approximately 25 feet wide, with garage access from the rear. Questions were also raised about the potential for rezoning adjacent C‑2 parcels in the future, the operation status of a nearby substation, and whether fees for the application had been waived. Staff said the petitioner had paid the application fee and that the application arrived before any subsequent fee‑waiver policy.
The planning commission’s recommendation would require a development agreement because the current code requires a development agreement when a conditional overlay is attached; staff said code amendments are under consideration that might allow limited overlays without a development agreement in the future.
Ending: Staff indicated the item would return for additional questions and formal public hearings; no rezoning vote occurred at the work session.
