HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3870-A Staff AnalysisJanuary 12, 1988
Item No. 3 - Z -3870-A
Owner: Vance Vermillion
Applicant: Same
Location: 8315 Mabelvale Cut -Off
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "C-4"
Purpose: Auto Parts and Body Shop -
Size: 2.0 acres
Existing Use: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
East - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The request is to rezone 8315 Mabelvale Cut -Off from
"R-2" to "C-4" to allow auto parts sales and a body
shop. The property is located approximately 1/2 mile
west of Chicot Road and in an area that is zoned "R-2,"
with the nearest nonresidential zoning found at the
intersection of Chicot and Mabelvale Cut -Off. Land use
is almost excusively single family, but there are
several nonresidential uses in the general area. They
are nonconforming and located on Mabelvale Cut -Off to
the east and Legion Hut Road to the south. There's also
some vacant land and a church. The immediate vicinity
can best be described as being residential, and it
appears that the proposed reclassification is
incompatible with the existing pattern.
2. The site is vacant and relatively flat.
3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street
Plan issues associated with this request. Dedication of
additional right-of-way occurred with a previous action
on the property.
4. Engineering has indicated that street improvements will
be required for Mabelvale Cut -Off and Brimer Road. Also,
access will be a major problem because of the property's
location.
January 12, 1988
Item No. 3 - Continued
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There's no documented neighborhood position on the site.
The existing Conditional Use Permit was approved for a
small church, but it was never constructed.
7. Staff is opposed to the "C-4" request because it would
establish an undesirable spot zoning and could have an
adverse impact on the surrounding area. The immediate
neighborhood is all residential and a "C-4" rezoning
could create a number of problems for this type of
development pattern. Finally, the property cannot be
considered a viable commercial site because of its
location.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the "C-4" rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-12-88)
The applicant was not present when the item was first called.
There were 12 objectors in attendance. After some
discussion, the Commission deferred it to a later time in the
hearing to give the applicant some additional time. At
2 p.m. the Chairman brought the item back before the
Commission and the applicant was not present. Lee Snider,
representing the neighborhood, spoke against the rezoning and
presented 25 letters from residents who opposed the request
but were unable to attend the hearing. A motion was made to
recommend approval of the "C-4" rezoning. The vote was
0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. The motion failed and the
request was denied.