Z-5677 Staff AnalysisMay 4, 1993
ITEM N 6 Z-5677
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Howard M. Calvert
Howard M. Calvert
6600 Woodson
Rezone from R-2 to 0-3
Office
0.41 acres
Single -Family
,SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
North - Vacant, zoned R-2
South - Single -Family, zoned R-2
East - Single -Family, zoned R-2
West - Single -Family, zoned R-2
STAFF ANALYSIS
The request for 6600 Woodson is to rezone the property from
R-2 to 0-3 for an unspecified office use. The site is
occupied by a single family residence and two accessory
structures in the southwest corner of the lot, and has
217 feet of frontage on Woodson and 82 feet on Big Oak Lane.
The intersection of Big Oak and Woodson is situated south of
West 65th and approximately a 1/4 mile east of Geyer Springs
Road.
Zoning in the neighborhood is R-2, R-4, C-1, C-3 and I-2.
The property is surrounded by R-2 and the existing zoning
pattern has been placed for a number of years; there has
been very little zoning change in the immediate vicinity.
Land use is made up of single family residences, duplexes,
office, commercial and industrial. The majority of the
nonresidential uses are located on the land that fronts on
either West 65th or Geyer Springs. There are several
exceptions, a beauty shop, zoned C-1, on Big Oak and
industrial user on the east side of Woodson.
An 0-3 reclassification of 6600 Woodson is in conflict with
the 65th Street East Plan, and staff does not support the
request. Over the years, the City has tried to protect the
residential neighborhood along Woodson from incompatible
zoning and the proposal before the Commission is contrary to
that effort. When the I-2 (Z-2382) was rezoned on the east
May 4, 1993
ITEM O.• 6 Z-5677(Cont.)
side of Woodson, a 50 foot buffer was created between the
industrial land and the single family lots. On the west
side of Woodson, there is no zoned buffer at this time,
however, the adopted plan shows a buffer strip along the
south side of a mixed commercial/industrial area. The
corner of Big Oak and Woodson is not a strong office
location and rezoning the property would be very undesirable
for the neighborhood.
LANE} USE PLAN ELEMENT
The plan recommends Single Family for the site in question.
Both the plan and zoning pattern have green space strips
north of the site to buffer the single family from
commercial and warehouse uses to the north. The proposal is
in conflict with the plan and existing conditions have not
changed to warrant an amendment.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
There are none to be reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the 0-3 rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 4, 1993)
The applicant, Howard Calvert, was present. There were four
objectors in attendance. Mr. Calvert discussed the staff's
write-up and said there was some support from several of the
neighbors. Mr. Calvert said that he thought the property
could be developed as a small clinic and parking could be
provided. He went on to describe other zoning in the
neighborhood, including several R-4 lots on Big Oak Lane.
Mr. Calvert said the rezoning would not create any traffic
or noise problems.
Milan Allinson, a resident of Meadowlark for 29 years,
objected to the rezoning. Mr. Allinson described other uses
in the area and said there was a lot of vacant office space.
Mr. Allinson said there was no need for more vacant offices
and the neighborhood was owner occupied.
Betty Miller, a neighborhood resident for 25 years, said the
area was residential and well -kept. Ms. Miller said the
rezoning would decrease property values and asked the
Commission to vote against it.
E
May 4, 1993
ITEM N 6 Z-5677Wont.)
Pauline Pearrow said the area was a nice family
neighborhood, and did not need a business and the associated
traffic. Ms. Pearrow said the single family neighborhood
needed to be maintained, and asked for a denial of the 0-3.
J. E. Hammond, another resident in the neighborhood, said
traffic and noise would be a problem. Mr. Hammond said the
property was not an office location, and there was not
adequate area available for parking.
Howard Calvert spoke again and said that he has no immediate
plans, however, no major changes would have to be made to
the structure. Mr. Calvert went on to discuss the parking
and traffic. He said there were no prospects for the
property, and he was willing to sell or lease the site.
At this time, a motion was made to deny the 0-3 request.
The motion was seconded.
Jay Dyke, an attorney, spoke for Mr. Calvert. Mr. Dyke said
a small doctor's office could be beneficial for the
neighborhood, and there was sufficient area for parking
because of being a corner lot. Mr. Dyke also said that
traffic should not be a problem. Mr. Dyke suggested that
there would be no noise from 0-3 uses, and concluded by
addressing various issues.
The Commission then voted on the motion to deny the 0-3
rezoning. The motion carried by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays
and 2 absent.
3