Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4509 Staff AnalysisAugust 27, 1985 Item No. 3 - Z-4509 Owner: Charles J. and Mary A. Ready Applicant: Mary A. Ready Location: 100 Rice Street Request: Rezone from 11R-3" Single -Family to 11R-5" Urban Residence Purpose: Multifamily Size: 6750 square feet Existing Use: Multifamily SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Public, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This issue is before the Planning Commission as a result of action taken by the City's Enforcement Division. The structure was a legal nonconforming use with three units in it. At some point, there was a fire that heavily damaged the building. When the previous owner rebuilt the interior, he converted the attic into a fourth unit, thus, expanding a nonconforming structure without first trying to obtain the necessary zoning. An attempt was made to obtain a fourth utility meter, and that was how the City became aware of the expansion issue. The lot is located on the south side of West Markham across from the Schools for the Deaf and Blind. The immediate neighborhood is made up of primarily single family units, but there are also some two and three -unit structures. The zoning is "R-3" with a few lots zoned "R-4" and one "R-5" parcel within a block of the property in question. Further to the east, approximately two blocks away, the area includ-s more "R-5" and some "R-6" but appears to be less stable than the neighborhood around Rice Street. Some land east of Barton is still vacant and is close to'the MOPAC Railroad tracks. 2. The site is occupied by one two-story frame structure. August 27, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. Engineering has stated that parking lot improvements are needed on the site. There have been no comments received from the other reviewing agencies. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. Staff has received one call objecting to the rezoning. The only history on the site has been enforcement action. 7. In the past, staff has tried to discourage single lot rezonings in older neighborhoods to permit higher densities. With this case, the staff position remains the same and opposes the "R-5" zoning. Staff recognizes the existing three units but feels that an "R-5" reclassification could have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and establish precedent for similar zonings. The current mix of "R-3" and "R-4" zoning seems to be working and should be maintained. Conversion of existing structures to two units is desirable, but allowing "R-5" zoning, the possibility of removing structures to accommodate more unit units becomes a concern. The buildings with three or four units should be left as nonconforming uses if they have not been rezoned. This area is part of the Woodruff School Neighborhood Plan which recognizes the neighborhood for single family use and does not advocate higher densities for this location. The plan recommends multifamily development/zoning further to the east. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the 11R-5" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Ben McMinn, an attorney. There were no objectors. Mr. McMinn spoke and presented some background on the property and the enforcement matter. Kenny Scott of the City's Enforcement Division then discussed the installation of a fourth utility meter which expanded the existing nonconforming use and created the enforcement issue. He stated that the structure had three legal units. Mike Batie of the Engineering staff discussed the parking and access concerns. There was a long discussion about the various issues. The Planning Commission then voted on the rezoning as filed. The vote: 0 ayes, 8 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (David Jones). The request was denied. 1. Meeting Date: October 1, 1985 2. Case No.: Z-4509 3. Request: Rezone from "R-3" Single Family to "R-5" Urban Residence 4. Location: 100 Rice Street 5. Owner/Applicant: Charles J. and Mary A. Ready/Mary A. Ready 6. Existing Use: Multifamily 7. Proposed Use: Multifamily 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended denial of the "R-5" request. This issue was before the Planning Commission because of an enforcement action taken by the City. The structure was a legal nonconforming use with three units. The building was heavily damaged by fire, and when it was rebuilt, a fourth unit was added expanding the nonconforming status. The Zoning Ordinance does not permit expansion of a nonconforming use without first trying to rezone the property. Staff felt that the rezoning could have a negative impact on the area and is in conflict with the adopted Woodruff Neighborhood Plan. 9. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Commission recommended den:�al of the "R-5" rezoning as filed. 10. Recommendation Forwarded With: 0 ayes, 8 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention. 11. Objectors: None. August 27, 1985 Item No. 3 - Z-4509 Owner: Charles J. and Mary A. Ready Applicant: Mary A. Ready Location: 100 Rice Street Request: Rezone from 11R-3" Single Family to 11R-5" Urban Residence Purpose: Multifamily Size: 6750 square feet Existing Use: Multifamily SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Public, Zoned "R-2" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This issue is before the Planning Commission as a result of action taken by the City's Enforcement Division. The structure was a legal nonconforming use with three units in it. At some point, there was a fire that heavily damaged the building. When the previous owner rebuilt the interior, he converted the attic into a fourth unit, thus, expanding a nonconforming structure without first trying to obtain the necessary zoning. An attempt was made to obtain a fourth utility meter, and that was how the City became aware of the expansion issue. The lot is located on the south side of West Markham across from the Schools for the Deaf and Blind. The immediate neighborhood is m-,de up of primarily single family units, but there are also some two and three-un_it structures. The zoning is "R-3" with a few lots -zoned "R-4" and one "R-5" parcel within a block of the property in question. Further to the east, approximately two blocks away, the area includ-s more "R-5" and some "R-6" but appears to be less stable than the neighborhood around Rice Street. Some land east of Barton is still vacant and is close to the MOPAC Railroad tracks. 2. The site is occupied by one two-story frame structure. August 27, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. 4. Engineering has stated that parking lot improvements are needed on the site. There have been no comments received from the other reviewing agencies. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. Staff has received one call objecting to the rezoning. The only history on the site has been enforcement action. 7. In the past, staff has tried to discourage single lot rezonings in older neighborhoods to permit higher densities. With this case, the staff position remains the same and opposes the "R-5" zoning. Staff recognizes the existing three units but feels that an "R-5" reclassification could have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and establish precedent for similar zonings. The current mix of "R-3" and "R-4" zoning seems to be working and should be maintained. Conversion of existing structures to two units is desirable, but allowing "R-5" zoning, the possibility of removing structures to accommodate more unit units becomes a concern. The buildings with three or four units should be left as nonconforming uses if they have not been rezoned. This area is part of the Woodruff School Neighborhood Plan which recognizes the neighborhood for single family use and does not advocate higher densities for this location. The plan recommends multifamily development/zoning further to the east. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "R-5" request as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Ben McMinn, an attorney. There were no objectors. Mr. McMinn spoke and presented some background on the property and the enforcement matter. Kenny Scott of the City's Enforcement Division then discussed the installation of a fourth utility meter which expanded the existing nonconforming use and created the enforcement issue. He stated that the structure had thred legal units. Mike Batie of the Engineering staff discussed the parking and access concerns. There was a long discussion about the various issues. The Planning Commission then voted on the rezoning as filed. The vote: 0 ayes, 8 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (David Jones). The request was denied.