HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5422 Staff AnalysisMarch 26, 1991
ITEM NO. 6• Z-54
Owner:
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Purpose:
Size:
Existing Use:
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
Gerald F. Martindill
Dorothy Martindill
Gerald F. Martindill, Jr.
Gregory M. Hopkins
5804 South University Ave.
Rezone from C-3 to C-4
Auto Sales
1.61 AC
Commercial (vacant)
North
- Auto Sales, zoned I-2
South
- Auto Sales, zoned C-4
East
- Auto Sales, zoned I-2
West
- Single-family, zoned I-2
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The request before the Commission is to rezone 5804 South
University from C-3 to C-4 for auto sales. The site has one
structure and the property has been used for retail sales in
the past. The existing building will be remodeled to
accomodate the new use, and changes will be made to the site
to allow the display of automobiles.
Zoning along the South University Avenue frontage is C-3, C-
4, and I-2, with the site in question abutting C-4 and I-2
tracts. To the west of Mablevale Pike, the zoning is R-2.
There is also some R-2 land adjacent to Geyer Springs Road.
Land use in the general vicinity includes single-family,
eating places, retail, auto and motorcycle sales, auto
service, and the sale of factory built homes. The
residential use is a well-established single-family
neighborhood to the west. The single-family lots that are
adjacent to Mablevale Pike have a rear yard relationship
with the properties on South University.
Because of the existing land use, there is no question that
the proposed use is compatible with the area. The 65th
Street West District Plan identifies this segment of South
University for "strip development" or commercial uses.
Therefore, either a C-3 or C-4 reclassification conforms to
the plan's direction for the area. Also, the Zoning
Ordinance states that the C-4 district -is designed for
heavily traveled major arterials.
1
March 26, 1991
ITEM NO. 6: Z-5422(Cont.)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
None Reported.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the C-4 rezoning as requested.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (March 26, 1991)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors, and the
item was placed on the consent agenda. A motion was made to
recommend approval of the C-4 request. The motion was
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, and 3 absent.
2