Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4209 Staff AnalysisApril 24, 1984 Item No. 4 - Z-4209 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Jim Dixon Kenneth Vernon 1510 South Schiller Rezone from "R-4" Two Family to "MF -18" Multifamily Boarding House 7,800 square feet + Boarding House (Nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" West - Single Family and Duplex, Zoned "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to utilize the property in question for a boarding house which is the current use. A boarding house is not permitted in an "R-4" district so the Zoning Enforcement Office issued a violation notice on February 27, 1984. This rezoning request is a follow-up to that notice. The property is situated in a neighborhood of primarily "R-4" zoning with some "R-5," 1IC=3," "0-3" and 11I-2" locations. Even with the mixed zoning pattern, the predominant land use is still single family. Some houses in the immediate area are in the process of being upgraded and other structures have been completely renovated. This activity indicates that the neighborhood is being stabilized, and it appears that the area will continue to be a single family neighborhood. A boarding house is not compatible with this type of a neighborhood and does introduce a more transient population to the area. Because of the direction the neighborhood is going and in the process of becoming more stable, a boarding house and necessary zoning is viewed as being inappropriate for the location. The request is also spot zoning. April 24, 1984 Item No. 4 - Continued 2. The site is a typical residential lot with a two story residence on it and a small accessory building on the rear lot line. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. The issue of spot zoning should be addressed when discussing this request. The rezoning of this lot would create a spot zone at this location. 6. There is no documented history on the site. In the past, the neighborhood has expressed some opposition to similar rezoning requests. It is the staff's understanding that a petition is being circulated in the neighborhood opposing the request. 7. The staff does not support this request and feels that allowing a boarding house at this location could have a negative impact on the area. The neighborhood is in the process of upgrading itself and going through a period of stabilization. The land use such as is proposed with this request could impose some undesirable influences on the area and possibly, could reverse the trend that is now occurring. Staff is also concerned that if the rezoning is approved, there would be very little control over the number of people residing at the location. The Zoning Ordinance permits the use, but does not regulate the number of persons. One controlling factor may be the parking requirement which requires one space per sleeping accommodation. It appears that the lot may be able to accommodate only a portion of the required parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Tim Geary, an attorney. There were six to seven objectors also present. In addition, two petitions with a total of 41 signatures opposing the request had been submitted to the staff prior to the public hearing. Mr. Geary requested a deferral because he had not had adequate time to prepare for the hearing. A motion to defer the item was made and seconded. April 24, 1984 Item No. 4 - Continued Muskie Harris of the Central High Neighborhood Association asked that the deferral be denied. The motion was defeated. Mr. Geary stated that the property had been used as a boarding house for 11 years and questioned if this did not in fact create a nonconforming use. He pointed out that 13 persons were residing in the house and 8 of those were family members, and that the neighborhood had a mixed land use pattern. The nonconforming use issue was discussed, and it was determined that the property would be nonconforming if the use was in existence prior to 1937. Kenny Scott of Zoning Enforcement stated that his office had issued a notice and was unaware of the property being a nonconforming use. Muskie Harris then spoke against the request. He described the neighborhood as in the process of upgrading itself and becoming a stable single family neighborhood. He stated that the property in question had caused problems for years and would be an undesirable use in the neighborhood. Ethel Ambrose also spoke in opposition to the request. She described the residence as having 14 to 15 persons with only 3 of those being family members. She felt that the site could not provide the needed parking, and she indicated that her residence and the property at 1510 Schiller shared a common driveway. After a lengthy discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the request. The motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote. The vote: 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. The request was denied. April 24, 1984 Item No. 4 - Z-4209 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Jim Dixon Kenneth Vernon 1510 South Schiller Rezone from "R-4" Two Family to "MF -18" Multifamily Boarding House 7,800 square feet + Boarding House (Nonconforming) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-4" West - Single Family and Duplex, Zoned "R-4" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The proposal is to utilize the property in question for a boarding house which is the current use. A boarding house is not permitted in an "R-4" district so the Zoning Enforcement Office issued a violation notice on February 27, 1984. This rezoning request is a follow-up to that notice. The property is situated in a neighborhood of primarily "R-4" zoning with some "R-5," "C-3," "0-3" and "I-2" locations. Even with the mixed zoning pattern, the predominant land use is still single family. Some houses in the immediate area are in the process of being upgraded and other structures have been completely renovated. This activity indicates that the neighborhood is being stabilized, and it appears that the area will continue to be a single family neighborhood. A boarding house is not compatible with this type of a neighborhood and does introduce a more transient population to the area. Because of the direction the neighborhood is going and in the process of becoming more stable, a boarding house and necessary zoning is viewed as being inappropriate for the location. The request is also spot zoning. April 24, 1984 Item No. 4 - Continued 2. The site is a typical residential lot with a two story residence on it and a small accessory building on the rear lot line. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies at this time. 5. The issue of spot zoning should be addressed when discussing this request. The rezoning of this lot would create a spot zone at this location. 6. There is no documented history on the site. In the past, the neighborhood has expressed some opposition to similar rezoning requests. It is the staff's understanding that a petition is being circulated in the neighborhood opposing the request. 7. The staff does not support this request and feels that allowing a boarding house at this location could have a negative impact on the area. The neighborhood is in the process of upgrading itself and going through a period of stabilization. The land use such as is proposed with this request could impose some undesirable influences on the area and possibly, could reverse the trend that is now occurring. Staff is also concerned that if the rezoning is approved, there would be very little control over the number of people residing at the location. The Zoning Ordinance permits the use, but does not regulate the number of persons. One controlling factor may be the parking requirement which requires one space per sleeping accommodation. It appears that the lot may be able to accommodate only a portion of the required parking. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Tim Geary, an attorney. There were six to .seven objectors also present. In addition, two petitions with a total of 41 signatures opposing the request had been submitted to the staff prior to the public hearing. Mr. Geary requested a deferral because he had not had adequate time to prepare for the hearing. A motion to defer the item was made and seconded. April 24, 1984 Item No. 4 - Continued Muskie Harris of the Central High Neighborhood Association asked that the deferral be denied. The motion was defeated. Mr. Geary stated that the property had been used as a boarding house for 11 years and questioned if this did not in fact create a nonconforming use. He pointed out that 13 persons were residing in the house and 8 of those were family members, and that the neighborhood had a mixed land use pattern. The nonconforming use issue was discussed, and it was determined that the property would be nonconforming if the use was in existence prior to 1937. Kenny Scott of Zoning Enforcement stated that his office had issued a notice and was unaware of the property being a nonconforming use. Muskie Harris then spoke against the request. He described the neighborhood as in the process of upgrading itself and becoming a stable single family neighborhood. He stated that the property in question had caused problems for years and would be an undesirable use in the neighborhood. Ethel Ambrose also spoke in opposition to the request. She described the residence as having 14 to 15 persons with only 3 of those being family members. She felt that the site could not provide the needed parking, and she indicated that her residence and the property at 1510 Schiller shared a common driveway. After a lengthy discussion, a motion was made to recommend approval of the request. The motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote. The vote: 0 ayes, 10 noes and 1 absent. The request was denied.