HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report
STAFF REPORT
Case No.:
86-114
Applicant: Deborah Owens
Request:
Rezone fromC-N Neighborhood BusinesstoR-lA Single
Family Residential
'Location: Lots 23 and 24, Block 4, Prairie View Heights
(600 Tarrow street).
Physical Features:
Area: (both lots) 8500sq . ft.
Dimensions: 85' X 100' (each lot 85' X 50')
Frontage: 100' along Tarro.w; 85' along Peyton
Depth: 85' off of Tarrow; 100 ' off of Peyton
Area Zoning:
North:
East:
South:
West.:
R-l
C-l (across Tarrow)
C-N
R-l
Existing Land Use:
One residence located on subJect lots. Residential area to
the west and north Commercial to the east, across Tarrow.
Commercial on adJacentC-N zoned lots to the south.
Land Use Plan:
Area reflected as low density residential on land use plan.
Engineering:
Water: Adequate
Sewer: Adequate
Streets: Adequate capacity; any future access to lot 24 to
Peyton St. only.
Flood Plain: N/A
No t i f i.ca.t ion.:
Legal Notice Publication(s): 7--2-86; 7-30-.86
Advertised Commission Hearing Da t e (s) : 7-1 7-86
Advertised Council Hearing.Dates: 8-14-86
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 19
Response Received: Several inquiries as to nature of
request, location of lots. Two callers alleged that
lots in question are part of an undivided estate.
Staff .Commen.ts:
These lots wereincludedina city initiated rezoning that
occurred in theSpring,1983. The lots were rezoned from C-
2 Commercial Industrial to C-N following receipt of a
petition from area residents requesting that the City rezone
theC-2 area toaresidential classification.
1
Staff,has no objections to this request. The requested
zoning is in compliance with the land use plan and is
compatible with the zoning and development in the Prairie
View Heights subdivision. R-IA was identified by staff as
an acceptabl~alternative toC-N on these lots in the City
in! t.i ated.......rezoni ng.
P&Z ACTION: On 7-17-86 P&Z voted (4-2) to recommend approval of
this request to rezone from C-N toR-la.
P&Z MINUTES:
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: 86-114: A public hearing on the question of
rezoning lots 23 and 24, Block 4, Prairie View Heights subdivision
fro.C~NNeighborhood BusinesstoR-lA Single Fa.ilyResidential.
Appl ica.t ion is in the.na.eofDeborahOwe:ns.
Mr. Callaway explaIned the request is to rezone 2 lots on Tarrow Street from C-Nto
R-lA. He identified existing area land uses, and informed the Commission th.at
the ~ntireareaisreflectedaslow densityresidentialon>thelanduse plaJn. He
cOlllJll~nted briefly.regarding background events which established the C-N zoning on these Can(
other) ,tracts as beingGity initiated rezoning following receipt of a petition from area
resiqentsrequesting that the City rezonetheC-2 area to a residential
classification. He added that staff has.no objections to this request as tlne
requ~:ste~, zqning .is incompliance with the land use plan and is cOJllpatiblewith the
Zo?iIl:~andi development in the entire Prairie View Heights subdivision. He then
refel1Nrdtoa letter from Mr. Ron Cobb which expresses opposition to this request,
adding that a copy of this letter has already been forwarded to the Legal Department.
Mr. MacGilvrayaskedMr.Mayoif the parking easement referred to in Mr. Cobb's
letter is allowed by ordinance, i. e.,off-si te parking. Mr. Mayo replied tJlathe is
not sllre of the wording in. the ordinance.
The public hearing was opened. Deborah Owens, applicant, came forward and stated
that~he sees no problem with the parking easement , but that she did not sign the
leaseii:or the parking easement referred. to in Mr. Cobb' s.letter. . Mr. Dresser asked
Ms. OW.ens if she owns the lots in question and she replied that she does, that she
inher~ted,tb,~ in 1981. Discussion followed concerning ownership of the lots,
idellt~fication of the executor of the estate and reasons for requesting the rezoning,
which':Ms. Owens listed as being to get the house remodelled.
Ella Johnson, 614 Banks came forward, stating that she does not know anything about
this rezoning, that Deborah is her niece and does not have'anything to do with the
ownere;hipofthe land; that she and her sisters inherited the land, and since she is
the oldest daughter, she owns all of it. Following questioning, Ms. Johnson said
that she wanted the Commission to approve this request, but Mr. Cobb stepped forward
tosaytha.the balievedMs.Johnsonwas trying to. say that sheopposesd this request
to rezone. Mr. Cobb then. explained who he. got the lease from and exactly how it came
about, adding that he is against rezoning lot 23,[ but that he has no opinion
regarding.lot24,but that he believes rezoning of that lot (24) would allow Ms.
Owens to do what she wanted to do. He added finally that he has an interest on lot
23, and its use will .becommercial.
Discussion followed regarding the leases and easements and how they may or may not
work. Mr. Cobb stated that he would release the easement on lot 24.
2
City Attorney. Cathy Locke.came forward and asked who had signed the parking easement j
then. asked if Ella Johnson is the executrix of the estate when she was informed that
Ms. .Johnson had/sigIled the easement. Mr. Cobb replied that he had previously
understood that Ms. JOhnson>wa$the executdx, but thathehas.since found out that
she may not be. Mr. Kaiser.said that now this Commission is faced with an applicant
who may not be the owner of tile lots ,andhe asked Mrs. Locke if this Commiss ion can
evenconsiderthe>r~quest if ()wnership of the land is questionable. Mrs. Locke
replied.that it wouldbe\permissible for the Commission to consider the application,
and theConnnissionersshould.only consider the best zoning for the property.
No . one else.. spoke. The public. hearing.. was closed. After general...discussion
regardingownershiPandwhat.constitut~sa.parking easement, Mr.Mac~ilvray made a
motion to approve this request to rezonel9ts,23 &24 of Block. 4 Prairie View Heights
subdivision fromC-NtoR-lA. .. Mr. Wendle~,s2conded . the motion.. Mr. Dresser said
that in his opinion C-N is the properzon~~~gfor the lots as the area has had
commercial uses for. a long time, as well ~~>tl'1e fact that the City initiated the C-N
zoning because it believed that would be the best zoning for>the land.
Votes were caston the motion to approve t~erezoningrequest from .C-N to R-la and
the motion carried by a vote of. 4-2 {nress~r&.Sawtelleagainst).
3