Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5989 Staff AnalysisJune 27, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G Z-_59.89 (Cont) weeks. Staff was going to recommend, that this meeting not be held because there are no items to be presented. The next following agenda would be June 27, 1995. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Riggs for closing comment. He restated several items that he offered at the earlier presentation. In a response to a comment from Commissioner Chachere, the Chairman pointed out that the Commission typically accepted and allowed the applicant the first deferral requested. The Chairman then placed the item on the floor for consideration of the applicants request for deferral. A vote on the item produced 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 abstention (Ron Woods). The item was deferred until June 27. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995) Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, presented the staff recommendation as presented at the last Planning Commission meeting. Wood stated that there have been no changes in the proposal and no additional contact with the applicant since that meeting. The Chairman then asked if the applicant was present or a representative would like to come forward and present the case. Mr. William Woods, Jr. identified himself as acting in behalf of the applicant. He restated the application's purpose and intent which was to salvage the existing residential structure being a duplex and provide a portion of it for use as an architectural office for a family operation. Mr. Woods offered an excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance from the 0-1 District listing. He offered - commentary to the effect that the purpose and intent set forth in the Zoning Ordinance matches exactly the proposed usage and occupancy of the structure in question. He offered that the Ordinance supports the family's contention that the proposed architectural office would be compatible with the residential neighborhood and would offer stability to this block. Mr. Woods offered additional history of maintenance problems on this residential structure. He suggested that the property was no longer desirable as a residential use. Mr. Woods pointed out the occupancy and land use of adjacent structures in the area as being supportive of the application. Mr. Woods identified a beauty shop, a couple of blocks to the east, and a former architectural firm office in a residence located several blocks to the south as being supportive of this application. Mr. Woods closed his commentary. 6� June 27, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.; G Z-5 Cont Questions were then posed by the Commission. Commissioner McDaniel asked whether there was any potential involvement by'other land uses allowed in the 0-1 district. Mr. Woods responded by stating that the intent was to operate an architectural office. He stated that was basically it and offered no other uses or occupancy proposed at this time. The Chairman then stated that there were two cards turned in by persons wishing to address this issue. The first of these was Mr. Leroy James. The Chairman was told by a member of the audience that Mr. James had left the meeting earlier. Before the next speaker came forward to address the issue for the rezoning, it was pointed out that Mr. John Lewellen had turned in a card in support of the application but had to leave the meeting early. Mr. Larry Rogers then came forward. He identified himself as being in support of the application for the 0-1 zoning. Mr. Rogers offered a lengthy history of his involvement in this neighborhood through membership in the association of Central High School as well as the ACORN and CDC organizations. Mr. Rogers identified what he felt were growth activities in the area, Children's Hospital and such, and their involvement in the expansion of nonresidential. He stated that he felt this activity as an architect's office would enhance the neighborhood and would not be a detriment. He pointed out that Mr. Woods' occupancy as an office would not change the exterior character of the building. He proposes no building additions. The next person wishing to address this matter was Mr. James Bankhead, a resident of the immediate area. He identified himself as currently serving as vice president of the local CDC. He pointed out that one of the goals of the CDC.was to develop a neighborhood that was balanced between the several kinds of land uses, office business and residential. He stated that regardless of what may have been reported to the Commission earlier, the CDC believes that businesses and residential can compliment each other. The next speaker that was identified by the Chairman and invited to come forward and offer comments, identified herself as Shawna Freeman. She further identified herself as an employee of the architectural firm. She stated that she was present to answer any questions about the firm and its proposed occupancy. The Chairman asked her to address whether or not this business would occupy the entire structure. She stated that most of it would be used by the business, but that perhaps once remodeling is accomplished a- 6 June 27, 1995 SQBDIVT$IQN ITEM NO.: G Z-5989 Cont. portion of it could be rented out as a dwelling unit. In response to a question from the Chairman, she pointed out there are two dwelling units in the building at this time. The Chairman then raised a question as to whether or not restrictions would be imposed or whether the applicant proposed to add restrictions on the occupancy. In response to comments of the Chairman concerning the conditions, Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, pointed out that on a zoning such as this unless the applicant proposed the conditions they could not be imposed by the Commission. The Chairman then asked Richard Wood if it was appropriate to ask the applicant whether he intended to place restrictions on the use. Richard Wood pointed out that the 0-1 District is already quite restricted as to the number and types of uses permitted and in would perhaps not be appropriate to try to deal with conditioning the occupancy. Wood followed that comment by stating that even should this property be rezoned to 0-1, the use proposed would require a Board of Adjustment consideration for a parking variance in as much as there is little or no parking on the site currently. In response to a second question from the Chairman, Wood pointed out that the site plan presented does not indicate parking but that perhaps you could get two spaces behind the structure off West 14th Street. Commissioner Chachere then offered a thought that, because the change to the proposed business would have to go the Board of Adjustment for parking variance that conditions could be and might be imposed at that time on usage or other elements of the occupancy. Commissioner Adcock then asked whether there was any on - street parking adjacent to the site. The applicant's representative came forward and stated that she thought 'that you could perhaps park at least four cars on the site, two perhaps by ordinance. She did not address the question of on -street parking. However, there are several spaces in the immediate area as well as part of the front yard that is currently being used by residential tenants. A general discussion then followed involving both staff, the applicant and various commissioners as to the number of spaces which might be obtained on the property in compliance with the ordinance or the practical application. Commissioner Chachere says her memory of the last meeting was that there were two employees of the firm that could park back there and the current parking would be sufficient. 7 June 27, 1995 SUBDIVI9IO13 ITEM G Z-5989 (Cont. Commissioner Adcock then ask Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, whether the deficiency in parking was part of the reason that staff opposed the rezoning. Wood's response was no and then followed-up on a second question by Commissioner Adcock which was whether the Board of Adjustment should hear the variance before the rezoning is accomplished. Wood stated, ,No, that should -not be done." Wood pointed out that the land use question has to be resolved first before the Board has jurisdiction. Wood closed his comments by pointing out that the absence of proper parking is an element that the Commission can take into consideration in determination as to whether the change of use is appropriate. The Chairman then reintroduced the idea, perhaps, of putting conditions on the application. He stated that perhaps the Commission should just move on with dealing with the land use issue and leave any conditions or such to a hearing before the Board of Adjustment. The applicant pointed out that she was aware that there was a deficiency in parking and whatever the City requires the owner will work to resolve that. The Chairman asked if there was further discussion on this item. There being none he stated that the item then is on the floor for a vote by the Commission as filed, to 0-1. A vote on the application produced 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Ron Woods). The application is approved. 8 May 30, 1995 ITEM N 4 Z- $ Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Existing Use: Dr. William H. and Ron Woods Dr. William H. and Ron Woods 1401 Battery Street Rezone from R-3 to O-1 Office Occupancy 521 X 105, or .12 acres Residential, rental SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Multifamily, zoned R-3 South - Single -Family, zoned R-3 East - Single -Family, zoned R-3 West - Single -Family and Multifamily, zoned R-3 STAFF ANALYSIS The subject site lies within an area of the City which is experiencing problems with the housing stock, deteriorating public and commercial buildings. The land use and zoning south of West 14th Street is residential with a mix of apartment, duplex and one family with a park in the next block south. The only break in the land use is a small mortuary at 16th Street. The land use and zoning to the north is generally R-3 and R-5 with a grocery store at 12th Street and Battery. Given the zoning and use mix with the problems this neighborhood is working to resolve, it does not need another nonresidential. use. This is especially the case when the site at issue is substandard for a residential lot in size and has no potential for provision of off-street parking. LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT The site is in the Central City District. The Plan recommends single family use. Conditions have not changed to justify a change to a nonresidential use. May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5989 (Cont.) EN INEERING MMENT 1. Provide handicap access ramps at corner. 2. Repair curb and sidewalks adjacent to the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Denial of the application PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 30, 1995) Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, presented the item offering the staff's recommendation of denial of this application. Wood expanded on this written staff recommendation to say that this is an area of the city currently experiencing a number of significant problems. They range from crime to abandoned houses and boarded and secured structures which are in the process of being saved. Wood indicated that the staff's position of denial of the application is based upon a desire to maintain the nonresidential uses to the north of 14th Street and in other areas where they are currently located. Wood pointed out that south of 14th Street there is very little in the way of nonresidential. The introduction of further nonresidential activities such as office uses could perhaps be detrimental to the neighborhood and its efforts. The Chairman then recognized a representative of the owner, Juania Freeman. Ms. Freeman offered some historical notes on the ownership of the property. It having been purchased in 1988 and the continuing history of poor maintenance by the renters of the property and the difficulty in keeping the structure occupied with responsible parties. She offered commentary on the condition of the neighborhood as to how it is deteriorating. She indicated that with this difficult neighborhood and with the tenant situation that the owner felt like that the best thing at this time would be perhaps to occupy a portion of the building with his architectural firm; thereby, offering to upgrade the structure and provide maintenance. In response to a question from the Chairman, she stated that there was no significant modification of the structure proposed. Commissioner Chachere then offered several comments relative to this use and other nonresidential uses nearby. She indicated her experience with the neighborhood and that her office is just a couple blocks to the east. In replying to Commissioner Chachere, Richard Wood of Staff again offered a basis for the recommendation and some history on the 2 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5989 Cont. expansion of office type uses relative to the former Baptist Hospital location. Commissioner Chachere then offered comments as to her knowledge of a number of businesses such as the beauty shop, approximately two blocks to the east and other business eastward from there to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive. She expressed some curiosity as to why this was inappropriate when properties that close had been approved by the Commission and the Board in recent times. Wood pointed out that it was actually a little more than a couple of blocks to the east, and there was an old commercial established area that had been there for many years which runs back to the east to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive along 14th Street. Commissioner Chachere then offered that there were, even beyond Central High School a number of nonresidential uses, commercial and industrial. Staff pointed out that some of those uses as far west as Thayer Street did have a negative impact on that area. Uses such as the former florist at the corner of Park and 14th Streets heavily impacted the neighborhood with what was an industrial zoning and use. Wood stated that an office of the nature proposed probably would not offer a significant negative impact on the neighborhood but that once you cross that demarcation line, the question then is how much and where do you stop? A lengthy discussion then involved the staff, the applicant and several members of the Commission. Commissioner Daniels then injected a point extracted from the staff's write-up in this agenda which had to do with the actions of appropriate parking on this property. This elicited a response from several persons present as to the required parking, its design and where it might be located. It was determined during the course of this discussion that the existing provision for parking is barely two spaces on the eastside of the current duplex. Some persons that live there apparently park on the street or on the sidewalk. This point of discussion eventually reached a state to where it was pointed out that a variance would surely have to be dealt with for parking if the land use question is answered by rezoning this property. The Chairman then turned the subject to those persons in attendance who wish to comment in objection to this application. The first person offering comments was a Mr. Riggs representing the neighborhood CDC and the neighborhood association. He identified himself as living on Summit Street in the block to the west. 3 May 30, 1995 ITEM NO.: 4 Z-5989 (Cont Mr. Riggs offered a lengthy commentary on efforts by this neighborhood, the City and other organizations to raise this neighborhood to a better and safer environment by the rebuilding of the single family infrastructure. He indicated that the change of this use to a business activity was inappropriate and"was not compatible with the efforts that he observed in this neighborhood at this time. He pointed out that there was currently a parking problem in the area for tenants of the duplex and others where they are parking on the street or on the sidewalks. Commissioner Chachere then posed a question concerning the timeframe that the CDC or the neighborhood had for returning viability to this residential area. Mr. Riggs indicated that it was ongoing now that it was not a future proposition but that homes were being occupied, constructed and provisions made for others at this time. A lengthy discussion then followed concerning security and criminal elements within the neighborhood. This discussion was led by Commissioner Chachere and based upon her experiences. The Chairman then recognized Ms. Annie Abrams, a member of the local neighborhood association and an involved citizens. Ms. Abrams presented a lengthy discussion of neighborhood issues as well as her objection to the conversion of this structure to the business activity. Ms. Abrams' response to a question from a commissioner, stated that she was a resident of the area on Wolfe Street. The Chairman upon the completion of comments from Ms. Abrams asked Ms. Freeman if she would like to add further commentary. Ms. Freeman restated some of her previous concerns about the condition of the property and the condition of the neighborhood and her reason for requesting the rezoning. She completed her comments by stating that Mr. Woods, the owner, would at this time request a deferral of the matter. A discussion then followed involving the appropriateness and the procedure for deferral of items, especially when there is a commissioner involved in the application. Staff inserted a comment at this point in the discussion to state that there was not a planning commission meeting in two weeks. Staff was going to recommend, that this meeting not be held because there are no items to be presented. The next following agenda would be June 27, 1995. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Riggs for closing comment. He restated several items that he offered at the earlier presentation. In a response to a comment from Commissioner Chachere, the Chairman pointed out that the Commission typically accepted and allowed the applicant the first deferral requested. 4 June 27, 1995 SUaDIVTSION ITEM NO.: G Z-5989 (Cont. weeks. Staff was going to recommend, that this meeting not be held because there are no items to be presented. The next following agenda would be June 27, 1995. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Riggs for closing comment. He restated several items that he offered at the earlier presentation. In a response to a comment from Commissioner Chachere, the Chairman pointed out that the Commission typically accepted and allowed the applicant the first deferral requested. The Chairman then placed the item on the floor for consideration of the applicants request for deferral. A vote on the item produced 7 ayes, 0 nays, 3 absent and 1 abstention (Ron Woods). The item was deferred until June 27. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 27, 1995) Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, presented the staff recommendation as presented at the last Planning Commission meeting. Wood stated that there have been no changes in the proposal and no additional contact with the applicant since that meeting. The Chairman then asked if the applicant was present or a representative would like to come forward and present the case. Mr. William Woods, Jr. identified himself as acting in behalf of the applicant. He restated the application's purpose and intent which was to salvage the existing residential structure being a duplex and provide a portion of it for use as an architectural office for a family operation. Mr. Woods offered an excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance from the 0-1 District listing. He offered commentary to the effect that the purpose and intent set forth in the Zoning Ordinance matches exactly the proposed usage and occupancy of the structure in question. He offered that the Ordinance supports the family's contention that the proposed architectural office would be compatible with the residential neighborhood and would offer stability to this block. Mr. Woods offered additional history of maintenance problems on this residential structure. He suggested that the property was no longer desirable as a residential use. Mr. Woods pointed out the occupancy and land use of adjacent structures in the area as being supportive of the application. Mr. Woods identified a beauty shop, a couple of blocks to the east, and a former architectural firm office in a residence located several blocks to the south as being supportive of this application. Mr. Woods closed his commentary. A June 27, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G Z-5989(Cont.) Questions were then posed by the Commission. Commissioner McDaniel asked whether there was any potential involvement by other land uses allowed in the 0-1 district. Mr. Woods responded by stating that the intent was to operate an architectural office. He stated that was basically it and offered no other uses or occupancy proposed at this time. The Chairman then stated that there were two cards turned in by persons wishing to address this issue. The first of these was Mr. Leroy James. The Chairman was told by a member of the audience that Mr. James had left the meeting earlier. Before the next speaker came forward to address the issue for the rezoning, it was pointed out that Mr. John Lewellen had turned in a card in support of the application but had to leave the meeting early. Mr. Larry Rogers then came forward. He identified himself as being in support of the application for the 0-1 zoning. Mr. Rogers offered a lengthy history of his involvement in this neighborhood through membership in the association of Central High School as well as the ACORN and CDC organizations. Mr. Rogers identified what he felt were growth activities in the area, Children's Hospital and such, and their involvement in the expansion of nonresidential. He stated that he felt this activity as an architect's office would enhance the neighborhood and would not be a detriment. He pointed out that Mr. Woods' occupancy as an office would not change the exterior character of the building. He proposes no building additions. The next person wishing to address this matter was Mr. James Bankhead, a resident of the immediate area. He identified himself as currently serving as vice president of the local CDC. He pointed out that one of the goals of the CDC was to develop a neighborhood that was balanced between the several kinds of land uses, office business and residential. He stated that regardless of what may have been reported to the Commission earlier, the CDC believes that businesses and residential can compliment each other. The next speaker that was identified by the Chairman and invited to come forward and offer comments, identified herself as Shawna Freeman. She further identified herself as an employee of the architectural firm. She stated that she was present to answer any questions about the firm and its proposed occupancy. The Chairman asked her to address whether or not this business would occupy the entire structure. She stated that most of it would be used by the business, but that perhaps once remodeling is accomplished a 1.1 June 27, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G Z-5989 _Cont_ portion of it could be rented out as a dwelling unit. In response to a question from the Chairman, she pointed out there are two dwelling units in the building at this time. The Chairman then raised a question as to whether or not restrictions would be imposed or whether the applicant proposed to add restrictions on the occupancy. In response to comments of the Chairman concerning the conditions, Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, pointed out that on a zoning such as this unless the applicant proposed the conditions they could not be imposed by the Commission. The Chairman then asked Richard Wood if it was appropriate to ask the applicant whether he intended to place restrictions on the use. Richard Wood pointed out that the 0-1 District is already quite restricted as to the number and types of uses permitted and in would perhaps not be appropriate to try to deal with conditioning the occupancy. Wood followed that comment by stating that even should this property be rezoned to 0-1, the use proposed would require a Board of Adjustment consideration for a parking variance in as much as there is little or no parking on the site currently. In response to a second question from the Chairman, Wood pointed out that the site plan presented does not indicate parking but that perhaps you could get two spaces behind the structure off West 14th Street. Commissioner Chachere then offered a thought that, because the change to the proposed business would have to go the Board of Adjustment for parking variance that conditions could be and might be imposed at that time on usage or other elements of the occupancy. Commissioner Adcock then asked whether there was any on - street parking adjacent to the site. The applicant's representative came forward and stated that she thought that you could perhaps park at least four cars on the site, two perhaps by ordinance. She did not address the question of on -street parking. However, there are several spaces in the immediate area as well as part of the front yard that is currently being used by residential tenants. A general discussion then followed involving both staff, the applicant and various commissioners as to the number of spaces which might be obtained on the property in compliance with the ordinance or the practical application. Commissioner Chachere says her memory of the last meeting was that there were two employees of the firm that could park back there and the current parking would be sufficient. 7 June 27, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: G Z-5989 Cont. Commissioner Adcock then ask Richard Wood, of the Planning Staff, whether the deficiency in parking was part of the reason that staff opposed the rezoning. Wood's response was no and then followed-up on a second question by Commissioner Adcock which was whether the Board of Adjustment should hear the variance before the rezoning is accomplished. Wood stated, "No, that should not be done." wood pointed out that the land use question has to be resolved first before the Board has jurisdiction. wood closed his comments by pointing out that the absence of proper parking is an element that the Commission can take into consideration in determination as to whether the change of use is appropriate. The Chairman then reintroduced the idea, perhaps, of putting conditions on the application. He stated that perhaps the Commission should just move on with dealing with the land use issue and leave any conditions or such to a hearing before the Board of Adjustment. The applicant pointed out that she was aware that there was a deficiency in parking and whatever the City requires the owner will work to resolve that. The Chairman asked if there was further discussion on this item. There being none he stated that the item then is on the floor for a vote by the Commission as filed, to 0-1. A vote on the application produced 9 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Ron Woods). The application is approved. 8