Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4695 Staff AnalysisSeptember 23, 1986 Item No. B - Z-4695 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Valentine Hansen and Valentine Pardo Valentine Hansen North Van Buren and "C" Street northwest corner Rezone from "R-3" to "C-1" Commercial or Office 0.13 acres Single Family and Office SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" South - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" East - Duplex, Zoned "R-4" West - Single Family, Zoned "R-3" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1. The request is to rezone a single lot to "C-1" for an unspecified commercial or office use. The property is located at the northwest corner of North Van Buren and "C" Street in a neighborhood that is primarily zoned for residential use, either single family or two family. The land use is almost exclusively single family residential, especially north of "B" Street. To the south of "B" Street the zoning is more mixed as is the land use. Between "B" Street and West Markham the zoning includes "PCD," 110-3," "C-3" and "C-4" with the commerical zoning being concentrated between West Markham and "A" Street. The surrounding neighborhood is a stable residential area and allowing a commerical zoning at this location could create some problems for the neighborhood. 2. The site is a 45" x 123" lot with three structures on it. Two of the buildings are used for residential purposes and the third one, located on the corner, is a real estate office. 3. There are no right-of-way requirements or Master Street Plan issues associated with this request. September 23, 1986 Item No. B - Continued 4. Engineering reports that parking is inadequate for a rezoning from "R-3" to "C-1." Also, if parking is provided, the access point should be shown and approved by the Traffic Engineer. 5. There are no legal issues. 6. There is no documented neighborhood position on the site. The property has been used for both office and commerical uses over the years so it has some nonconforming status. 7. The request is in conflict with the adopted Heights/Hillcrest Plan and staff does not support the "C-1" rezoning. Over the years, attempts have been made to allow nonresidential zoning to encroach north of "A" Street. In each of those instances, staff has been opposed to the rezonings. "A" Street has always been viewed by the staff as an appropriate line between nonresidential and residential uses that should be maintained at all costs. Several years ago, an 110-1" request was filed for the lot at the southeast corner of "C" and North Van Buren to allow for a conversion of a residential structure into an office. That rezoning was denied by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. This particular request, if approved, could have a very adverse impact on the neighborhood and establish undesirable precedent for the area. Also, with the three buildings on the lot, the site is not a viable commercial tract of land. And finally, the property is not completely restricted to a residential use only, because the structure on the corner has nonconforming status it can -continue to be occupied by an office use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-1" rezoning as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (7-22-86) There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was not present. The Commission determined that the notice to adjacent owners had not been provided as required by the bylaws. A motion was made to defer this matter until August 26. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. September 23, 1986 Item No. B - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (8-26-86) The staff informed the Commission members that the necessary notification materials had not been submitted and recommended that the item be deferred. A motion was made to defer the request to the September 23, 1986, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-23-86) Staff informed the Planning Commission that the applicant had requested the rezoning be withdrawn from consideration but had not submitted anything in writing. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to withdraw the item. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent.