HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4419 Staff AnalysisMay 28, 1985
Item No. B - Z-4419
Owner: Dwight Jackson
Applicant: Same
Location: 2812 Commerce Street
Request: Rezone from "R-3" to "C-3"
Purpose: Commercial
Size: 7,000 square feet
Existing Use: Vacant and Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
East - Interstate Right -of -Way, Zoned "R-3"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1. The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone
the ofte lot at 2812 Commerce Street to "C-3." No
specifics have been provided at this time, but it
appears that the use will be some type of small retail
establishment. The immediate block is occupied by
single family residences or vacant lots, and the zoning
is residential. The land use in the area is
residential with "R-3" being the predominant zoning
classification. To the south, there is some 11I-2" in
place and to the north there is both "C-3" and "C-4."
Some of the "C-3" adjacent to East Roosevelt is vacant
which is a more appropriate location for a commercial
use. With the "C-3" lots to the northeast on the
frontage road, one is vacant and the southern one is
occupied by a billboard. Probably the most significant
land use to impact neighborhood is I-30, but because of
the property's location, that does not create a good
justification for a commercial rezoning. Even being on
the frontage road the lot is somewhat removed from more
viable commercial locations.
2. The site is occupied by a single family residence and
an accessory building in the rear. The lot is
50' x 140' feet.
May 28, 1985
Item No. B -- Continued
3. There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Plan
requirements.
4. The traffic engineer has expressed some concerns about
the parking and the access. There have been no other
ocmments received from the reviewing agencies as of
this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history
on this site.
7. Staff believes that the location is inappropriate for a
commercial reclassification and does not support the
request. The property is a single residential lot with
improper size for a quality commercial use or
development. The existing structure has no setback on
the south property line, and this could have an impact
on the residence to the south if the property was
rezoned. The "C-3" rezoning would probably be
misplaced because of the makeup of the immediate block
and its distance from East Roosevelt, the more logical
area for a commercial use. Staff also questions the
desirability of continuing nonresidential encroachment
into older residential neighborhoods.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(March 26, 1985)
The applicant, Dwight Jackson, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Jackson said that the existing structure
would be removed and a building for a small retail outlet
would be constructed. He said that he owned the property to
the north and presented a proposed design.concept utilizing
some of that land. Mr. Jackson said that a majority of the
residents supported the proposal. Beverly Jackson then
addresed the Planning Commission. She said that the
proposed use would benefit the neighborhood. Ms. Jackson
discussed the size of the new building and how the site plan
would work. There was a long discussion about several
issues, including utilizing a portion of another lot for the
project. A motion was made to defer the item for 45 days to
allow the owner to get with the staff and resolve the
various problems. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes,
0 noes and 2 absent.
May 28, 1985
Item No. B - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 28, 1985)
The applicant, Dwight Jackson, was present. There were no
objectors in attendance. Staff informed the Commission that
Mr. Jackson had submitted a preliminary site plan utilizing
the one lot at 2812 Commerce. Because of this and other
information, the Planning staff recommended that "C-1" be
approved with a conditional use permit for the proposed use,
an eating place. Mr. Jackson then spoke. He said that he'd
met with the Planning staff on several occasions and that
the residents of the area were in support of the proposal.
After some additional comments, Mr. Jackson agreed to
amending the application to "C-1." The motion was made to
recommend approval of the amended request to "C-1" and waive
additional filing fees and further notification of property
owners for the conditional use permit. The motion passed by
a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.
March 26, 1985
Item No. 6 - Z-4419
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
Dwight Jackson
Same
2812 Commerce Street
Rezone from "R-3" to "C-3"
Commercial
7,000 square feet
Vacant and Single Family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
East - Interstate Right -of -Way, Zoned "R-3"
West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3"
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1. The request before the Planning Commission is to rezone
the one lot at 2812 Commerce Street to "C-3." No
specifics have been provided at this time, but it
appears that the use will be some type of small retail
establishment. The immediate block is occupied by
single family residences or vacant lots, and the zoning
is residential. The land use in the area is
residential with "R-3" being the predominant zoning
classification. To the south, there is some 11I-2" in
place and to the north there is both "C-3" and "C-4."
Some of the "C-3" adjacent to East Roosevelt is vacant
which is a more appropriate location for a commercial
use. With the "C-3" lots to the northeast on the
frontage road, one is vacant and the southern one is
occupied by a billboard. Probably the most significant
land use to impact neighborhood is I-30, but because of
the property's location, that does not create a good
justification for a commercial rezoning. Even being on
the frontage road the lot is somewhat removed from more
viable commercial locations.
2. The site is occupied by a single family residence and
an accessory building in the rear. The lot is
50' x 140' feet.
l
I
March 26, 1985
Item No. 6 - Continued
3. There are no right-of-way issues or Master Street Plan
requirements.
4. The traffic engineer has expressed some concerns about
the parking and the access. There have been no other
ocmments received from the reviewing agencies as of
this writing.
5. There are no legal issues.
6. There is no documented neighborhood position or history
on this site.
7. Staff believes that the location is inappropriate for a
commercial reclassification and does not support the
request. The property is a single residential lot with
improper size for a quality commercial use or
development. The existing structure has no setback on
the south property line, and this could have an impact
on the residence to the south if the property was
rezoned. The "C-3" rezoning would probably be
misplaced because of the makeup of the immediate block
and its distance from East Roosevelt, the more logical
area for a commercial use.' Staff also questions the
desirability of continuing nonresidential encroachment
into older residential neighborhoods.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the "C-3" request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The applicant, Dwight Jackson, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Jackson said that the existing structure
would be removed and a building for a small retail outlet
would be constructed. He said that he owned the
property
the north and presented a proposed design conceptutiilizingo
some of that land. Mr. Jackson said that a majority of the
residents supported the proposal. Beverly Jackson then
addresed the Planninq Commission. She Said that the
Proposed use would benefit the neighborhood. T4s. Jackson
discussed the size of the new building and how the
would work. There wsite plan
as a long discussion about several
project
issues, including utilizing a portion of another lot for the
. A motion was made to defer the item for 45 days to
allow the owner to get with the staff and resolve the
various problems. The motion p
0 noes and 2 absent. assed by a vote of 9 ayes,