HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.02.65ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Regular Meeting, September 2, 1965
8:00 PM - City Commission Room
City Hall
Members present: Chairman Clifford W. McKibbin, Jr.
William Bush
Art Harris
S. Joe Davis
A. W. Lee, Jr.
Also present: City Manager Knowles
Building Official Linvel Risner
Absent: Robert Karns
Donald Bishop
Dr. Brooke Smith
Mason H. Wharton
The meeting was tailed to order by Chairman McXibbin.
The Chairman announced that a Public Hearing was in session
regarding the request of Mr. A. B. Peterson, Sr., representing
the property of Mr. Howard Hughes, on rezoning the East 15 feet
of Lots 11 and 34, and all of Lots 10 and 35, Block 9, Dreamwold,
from that of R -lA one family dwelling district to that of C -1
neighborhood commercial,
Mr. Peterson explained that Mr. Wesley Woodson had an option
to purchase the above described property, plus Lots 6 through 9 -A
fronting on French Avenue and commercially zoned, from Mr. Hughes
based on the rezoning whereby Mr. Woodson was proposing the con-
struction of a $43,000 commercial building known as the Burger Chef.
Further that the proposal was a 60 -foot building in depth with an
80 -foot set back from French Avenue for the off - street parking,
entrances from French and exit off of 25th Street. The alley
abandonment immediately wrest of the property was in question, but
would be presented to the City Commission for action. Mr. Peterson
pointed out that Lots 6 through 9 -A facing French Avenue and zoned
C -1 were not of sufficient depth for this type of business.
Mrs. Clay Williams, owning vacant property immediately abutting
to the west and facing Sarita Street, spoke in objection to the re-
zoning on the basis of a nuisance of noise, lights and trash.
Z & P minutes
9/2/65 -2-
----------- W - - ------------------ - --- - - ~- - ------------ -
James Terwilliger, living approximately one block south of
the property objected to the rezoning of commercial and requested
that the area stay R -lA whereby the commercial would be infringing
on Sarita Street, which is strictly built up with residential homes.
Mr. Swankhouse, a resident directly west of the property in
question and facing West 25th Street, stated that he objected.
He and Mrs. Swankhouse felt that commercial would be one more
detrimental problem to the sale of the Wright's residential
property to the south and across the street on Sarita Street.
Mr. Charles Morrison, over three hundred feet to the south,
objected on the basis of commercial encroaching on residential
property on Sarita Street; more traffic being generated into
the.residential area where there is a large number of small children;
and the question if another business of this type is warranted
in this immediate area.
In Executive Session, after a lengthy discussion, it was
pointed out that this was a situation that had been anticipated
several years ago when the new Zoning Ordinance was drawn whereby
commercial use abutting residential zoning could be handled under
the regulations set up on Page 50, Section 7. - Accessory Parking
in Residential District, allowing the commercial off - street parking
to be placed on the property zoned as residential and requiring
fencing. The Board also observed that to the immediate south
of this property in question and facing on French Avenue is existing
commercial property which would be just as feasible as this location
and without infringing into an existing residential area.
On the basis of the foregoing discussion, it was moved by
Mr. Bush to deny the request for commercial rezoning. Motion
seconded by Mr. Lee and carried unanimously.
Under the same scheduled public hearing was the rezoning re-
quest of Mr. Cecil J. Mixon on the property of the S. 42' of the
E. 51' of Lot 8, Robinson's Survey from that of R -5, one and two
family dwelling district to that of C -2, general commercial.
Property more particularly located north of West 13th Street on
the west side of Mulberry Avenue directly behind Mixon's Furniture
Store.
rk
r Z & P minutes
A 9/2/65 -3-
ww-- w-- ---- -.--- - --r-w ww- r- --- ------ -- --- r- ---- ------ -------- w -r-- -r
LL.
Mr. Mixon stated that he contemplated the operation of a used
car lot whereby the 42 feet would be needed to tie in with approxi-
mately a 70 -foot southerly commercial strip behind the furniture
store, facilitating the construction of a small office building
and parking of the cars. Mr. Mixon further stated that the
42 feet by 51 feet would not be of sufficient gize, after deductions
were made for set back requirements, to build a residence on,
and that he had improved the property by tearing down an old
garage and putting up a chain link fence.
There was no one appearing in behalf of the rezoning request
to register any objections.
In Executive Session, it was moved by Mr. Harris, seconded
by Mr. Bush and carried to deny the rezoning request on the basis
that this would be the only commercial use in the block whereby
on the port# 75 feet of this let was an above the average residence
and to the west was some average rental living quarters belonging
to Mr. Joe Jarrell. Further, the fact of lights burning all
night around the car lot and eventually under C -2 mechanical repair
work on the cars could be carried on into the night causing a
disturbance to residents.
t
Next under discussion was a request by the Building Official
for a clarification on the individual notification to property
owners within 300 lineal feet of the property under request for
rezoning.
The Board authorized that the property owners within the
block under rezoning also be notified. Also, notifying only
the property owners abutting the higher zoning and not those
o~ situated in a lower zoning district such as commercial.
=° The Building Official mentioned that under the Swimming
Pool Ordinance, fences were also required around the commercial
pools such as motels and hotels. Whereby the existing commercial
pools did not have the fencing, he requested consideration regarding
the enforcement on these and those in the future. Since the
Swimming Pool Ordinance is a separate ordinance and does not come
under the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, it was referred
back to the City Commission for further action and enforcement.
There being no further business at hand, the meeting adjourned.
Chairman l
Secretary