HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5243 Staff AnalysisNovember 14, 1989
Item No. 4 - Z-5243
Owner: D. Richard Johnson
Applicant: Same
Location: 10801 & 1080,5 Birchwood Drive
Request: Rezone from "R-2" to "0-1"
Purpose: Office
Size:
0.38 acres
Existing Use: Single family
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North - Single family, zoned "R-2"
South - Office, zoned "R-2"
East - Interstate right-of-way, zoned "R-2"
West _ Single family, zoned "R-2"
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The proposal before the Commission involves two residential
lots and the request is to rezone both lots from "R-2" to
"0-1" for future office use. No specific plans have been
submitted with the application so it is unknown whether the
existing structures will be converted into offices, or if
some new construction will take place on the property. Each
lot is occupied by a one story single family residence with
an attached carport. One lot is 70 feet wide and the other
has a lot width of 75 feet.
The two lots are located at the intersection of Birchwood
Drive and Shackleford which is the main entrance into the
Birchwood Subdivision. All the lots within the subdivision
are zoned 11R-2" as is some of the land between the
residential neighborhood and West Markham Street to the
north. Other zoning classifications found in the general
area include "0-2", "0-3", "C-3" and PCD. Land use is very
similar to the zoning with a mix of office and commercial
uses that range from retail establishments to motels.
Another major land use that needs to be mentioned is the
1-430/1-630 interchange which is situated directly east of
the property under consideration.
November 14, 1989
Item No. 4 - Z-5243 (Continued)
An office reclassification for the two lots is a significant
departure from the adopted 1-430 District Plan and could
have a far-reaching impact on the Birchwood neighborhood.
The subdivision is almost a residential island, but even
with all the development pressures from the north and south,
the neighborhood is a viable and stable residential pocket
that needs to be protected. Rezoning the two lots to "0-1"
is inconsistent with the goals of maintaining the
neighborhood's livability and staff cannot support the
proposed rezoning change. If the two lots are rezoned,
questionable precedent will have been set and it will be
very difficult to deny similar requests in the immediate
vicinity. Rezoning will impact the neighborhood's
residential character and dramatically lessen its
desirability as a place do live.
One final item that needs to be mentioned is the Bill of
Assurance for the subdivision. Covenant No. 1 states that
"No lot shall be used except for residential purposes. No
building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to
remain on any lot other than a single family dwelling not to
exceed 2 1/2 -stories in height and a private garage for not
more than two cars." The covenants and restrictions are in
force until 1999 and they can be extended by a majority of
the owners. To amend, cancel or supplement, it takes 60% of
the owners to -change the Bill of Assurance.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
None reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the 110-1" rezoning request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 14, 1989)
The applicant, Richard Johnson, was present. There were
nine to eleven objectors in attendance. (Seven of the
objectors filled out registration cards to address the
Planning Commission.) Dr. Johnson spoke and indicated that
he would like to defer the request to January 2, 1990. He
went on to describe the property and said there was little
opposition from the lots to the north. Dr. Johnson
indicated that the plans were to remodel the existing
structures for quiet office use.
2
November 14, 1989
Item No.�4 .-_.. Z_-5243 (Co_nt„i Hued}
At this point, the Chairman asked the residents if they
objected to deferring the item. They all indicated that
they were opposed to a deferral. Agnes Beall spoke and said
there was no possible compromise. No motion was made to
defer the item.
Additional comments were offered and Dr. Johnson requested
that the item be withdrawn without prejudice. A motion was
made to withdraw the "0-1” rezoning without prejudice. The
motion was approved by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 nays and
0 absent. (Agnes Beall thanked Dr. Johnson for withdrawing
the rezoning request.)
3