HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4012 Staff AnalysisMay 24, 1983
Item No. 14 Z-4012
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
James and Mildred Huntsman
Robert McHenry
7900 W. Capitol
Rezone from "R-2" Single Family
to "0-3" General Office
Conformity with Existing Use
34,400 square feet +
Illegal Office
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R-2"
South
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R-2"
East
- Vacant,
Zoned "MF
-24"
West
- Single
Family,
Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
The Traffic Engineer recommends denial of this application
because of the potential for increasing commercial traffic
in a residential neighborhood. No other adverse comments
were received. This application comes as a result of a
zoning enforcement action against an illegal office for a
contracting business. Neighbors have expressed considerable
opposition to this request. Staff believes this request is
inappropriate to the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The owner was present, and there were two objectors. The
applicant had asked the staff to convey to the Planning
Commission a request that the matter be deferred to the next
Planning Commission meeting because he was unable to attend
the meeting. The owners stated that they would prefer the
item to be deferred. The Planning Commission, since the
deferral request had come in late and not in accordance with
its bylaws, stated that it was inappropriate to defer the
matter because the owner was present and the objectors were
present. The motion to defer the matter was denied on a
vote of 0 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
May 24, 1983
Item No. 14 a Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION°
The owner stated that he had had his office there for quite
some time, and he preferred it because of the size of the
property. He stated that he kept a van and a pickup and two
trailers on the site. The opponents represented by Lucille
Long stated that frequently there were more vehicles
present, larger vehicles present and she showed photographs
taken of the property a few days prior to the Planning
Commission meeting which indicated that perhaps her
representation of the parking situation was somewhat more
true to life than the owners'. The owner stated that these
vehicles which had been there on a temporary basis belonged
to someone else and had since been moved and would remain
away from the property. There was considerable discussion
about the flooding potential of the property, etc. A number
of nuisance issues were raised. After the discussion, the
Commission moved to approve the application as filed. The
motion failed on a vote of 0 ayes, 9 noes and 2 absent.