HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4016 Staff AnalysisMay 24, 1983
Item No, 9 - Z-4016
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Jim Spears
Jim Spears
Northwest Corner, I-30 and
Wanda Lane
Rezone from "R-2" Single Family
and "C-3" General Commercial to
"C-4" Open Display
Commercial Development
35,000 square feet +
Use Car Lot and Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
South - I-30
East - Single Family and Commercial, Zoned "R-2"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R-2"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
No adverse comments have been received from any reviewing
agency concerning this request. The applicant presently has
a used car sales lot on the southern two lots of this
property and is planning to use these and the northern two
lots for future commercial development, possibly involving a
motel. The zoning proposed would bring the present use into
conformity.
Staff has received a petition from the residents of the
J.O. Dickey Subdivision containing 123 signatures citing the
neighborhood opposition to this request. The existing "C-3"
zoning is an unfortunate circumstance and further expansion
or intensification of it would serve no good purpose.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial.
May 24, 1983
Item No. 9 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were two objectors.
The applicant represented by attorney Andrew Clark stated
that he had purchased the property in January of 1983. He
offered to leave a buffer of existing trees on the north end
of the property nearest the residences to the north. He
cited a trend toward commercial development in the area and
stated that the car lot had been there for 10 years and that
he had owned it for five of those years. The opponents, Pat
Baldridge and Mary Carmen, cited a number of nuisance type
issues relating to the car lot and the customers' behavior
in the area. After they spoke, Mr. Clark offered a rebuttal
stating that the property had been platted for residential
use since 1955 and that none had occurred and claimed
further that such development would not occur in the future
based on past experience. After the discussion, the
Commission moved to approve the application as filed. The
motion failed on a vote of 0 ayes, 7 noes, 1 absent and 3
abstentions (Commissioners Clayton, Rector and Boles
abstained).