Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5166 Staff AnalysisMay 30, 1989 Item No. B - Z-5166 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: James Wright Dorothy Humphrey 2901 Wolfe Street Rezone from "R-4" to "C-1" Food store and beauty shop 0.25 acres Food store and beauty shop SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North - Single family, zoned "R-4" South - Single family, zoned "R-4" East - Vacant and single family, zoned "R-4" West - Single family, zoned "R-3" STAFF ANALYSIS: The property under consideration is occupied by a single structure which has been used as a residence and a small grocery store, a'nonconforming use. Within the last several months, a portion of the building was converted into a beauty shop which added a second commercial use to the lot. When the beauty shop operator (who also runs the grocery store) applied for a privilege license, it was denied because of expanding a nonconforming use which the Zoning Ordinance prohibits. The applicant was instructed to file for the appropriate rezoning change and that is the issue before the Commission - to rezone the property from "R-4" to " C - 1 . " Land use in the neighborhood is almost exclusively residential with a mix of single family, duplex and low- density multifamily. Other uses found in the area include a church and a daycare center with some lots still vacant. Zoning is either "R-3" or "R-4." The nearest commercial zoning is located on High Street, three blocks to the east. The zoning pattern has been established over the years and the neighborhood is not impacted by nonresidential zoning which is quite common in older parts of the City. May 30, 1989 Item No. B - Z-5166 (Continued) As with other commercial rezoning efforts in residential neighborhoods, Staff has a number of concerns with the current request and is opposed to the proposed "C-1" reclassification. Rezoning the lot in question could have a negative impact on the area, lead to other undesirable rezonings and establish a spot zoning. The Central City Land Use Plan maintains the residential character of the area so the request is also in conflict with the adopted plan. The surrounding neighborhood appears to be fairly stable and the potential for long-term damage to the area is too great and outweighs any short-term benefits gained from the proposed rezoning. Finally, the general area was one of the Housing Authority projects which went into certain neighborhoods to upgrade them and do away with incompatible land uses and zoning. Staff views this request as being in direct conflict with the work done years ago to stabilize the neighborhood and to create a healthy living environment. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: None reported. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the "C-1" rezoning as requested. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (April 18, 19,89) The applicant, Dorothy Humphrey, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Ms. Humphrey discussed the issue and said she opened the beauty shop because she was unaware of the Zoning Ordinance requirements and thought that only a privilege license was necessary. She told the Commission that the shop was in operation and that she converted storage space for the food store into the beauty shop area. There were a number of comments made and Ms. Humphrey responded to several questions. Staff explained why rezoning was necessary and said there was some confusion about the floor space that was changed. There was some discussion about deferring the item to allow the Enforcement Staff to develop a full report on the property and, hopefully, clarify the status of the beauty shop. A motion was then offered to defer the item to the May 30, 1989 meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays and 3 absent. May 30, 1989 Item No. B - Z-5166 (Continued) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 30, 1989) Staff informed the Commission that the Enforcement Office inspected the area in question and determined that it was probably used for storage and, therefore, expansion did not occur. Because of the determination, a rezoning was not necessary and Staff recommended that the item be withdrawn. A motion was made to withdraw the rezoning from consideration. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent.