Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4177 Staff AnalysisFebruary 28, 1984 Item No. 9 - Z-4177 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Gary E Chandler Same 106 N. Beechwood Rezone from "R-3" Single Family to 110-3" General Office Office 7,000 square feet + Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Office, Zoned "C-1" West Single Family, Zoned "0-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to convert an existing single family structure into a small office. The site is within the 200 -foot corridor north of Markham that has been designated for office use. This lot would be the extent of office zoning on Beechwood. The north property line of the lot is also the 200 -foot line for the office strip. The site to the east is an office related use zoned "C-1," and the property to the west is "0-3" but with single family use on it so the zoning appears to be compatible with the area. 2. The site is a typical residential lot with one single family structure on it. The property has a slight slope to it from east to west with the back portion being the high point. One unique feature is that the structure is set back approximately 100 feet from Beechwood. This creates a backyard area of less than 10 feet. 3. There are no right-of-way or Master Street Plan issues associated with the request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. February 28, 1984 Item No. 9 - Continued 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on this site. 7. The request is supported by the Heights/Hillcrest Plan. The staff also supports the rezoning because of the plan and the City's policies establishing the 200 -foot Office corridor. One concern is that the lot on the south is zoned "R-3" and the rezoning of this property in question would create an irregular zoning pattern. Some mechanism should be implemented to encourage the rezoning of these residential tracts that would create a situation similar to this one. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Gary Chandler, was present. There were five objectors also present. Mr. Chandler described the existing structure as being substandard and not useful as a residential unit. He stated that his plans were to renovate the building for use as a small office. Mrs. Lewis Shel spoke against the request and cited the severe parking problems in the area. She felt that another nonresidential use in the neighborhood would compound the problem. Anne Thompson and Martha Hudson also spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Both described the existing parking problems and said that the property would be best used for a residence. The Commission questioned Mr. Chandler about providing adequate parking off-site. He stated that he could provide the required parking and not impact the neighborhood. After a lengthy discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the application as filed. The motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote. The vote: 0 ayes, 9 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). The application was denied. February 28, 1984 Item No. 9 - Z-4177 Owner: Gary E Chandler Applicant: Same Location: 106 N. Beechwood Request: Rezone from "R-3" Single Family to "0-3" General Office Purpose: Office Size: 7,000 square feet + Existing Use: Single Family SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Office, Zoned "C-1" West - Single Family, Zoned "0-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to convert an existing single family structure into a small office. The site is within the 200 -foot corridor north of Markham that has been designated for office use. This lot would be the extent of office zoning on Beechwood. The north property line of the lot is also the 200 -foot line for the office strip. The site to the east is an office related use zoned "C-1," and the property to the west is "0-3" but with single family use on it so the zoning appears to be compatible with the area. 2. The site is a typical residential lot with one single family structure on it. The property has a slight slope to it from east to west with the back portion being the high point. One unique feature is that the structure is set back approximately 100 feet from Beechwood. This creates a backyard area of less than 10 feet. 3. There are no right-of-way or Master Street Plan issues associated with the request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. February 28, 1984 Item No. 9 - Continued 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history on this site. 7. The request is supported by the Heights/Hillcrest Plan. The staff also supports the rezoning because of the plan and the City's policies establishing the 200 -foot office corridor. One concern is that the lot on the south is zoned "R-3" and the rezoning of this property in question would create an irregular zoning pattern. Some mechanism should be implemented to encourage the rezoning of these residential tracts that would create a situation similar to this one. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant, Gary Chandler, was present. There were five objectors also present. Mr. Chandler described the existing structure as being substandard and not useful as a residential unit. He stated that his plans were to renovate the building for use as a small office. Mrs. Lewis Shel spoke against the request and cited the severe parking problems in the area. She felt that another nonresidential use in the neighborhood would compound the problem. Anne Thompson and Martha Hudson also spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Both described the existing parking problems and said that the property would be best used for a residence. The Commission questioned Mr. Chandler about providing adequate parking off-site.- He stated that he could provide the required parking and not impact the neighborhood. After a lengthy discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the application as filed. The motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote. The vote: 0 ayes, 9 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Richard Massie). The application was denied.