A request by Robert Hoover to rezone this property from R-6 (Single-Family Residential) to R-6/PUD (Single-Family Residential/Planned Unit Development) and approve a Preliminary Development Plan. To occupy the rear residence requires a zoning designation allowing two residential structures; a use not allowed in R-12 (a duplex district) and only permitted in R-18/PUD and R-30/PUD (which are planned apartment districts). An R-6/PUD can be tailored to allow the property to have two single-family structures, but no multiple-family structures.
PROPERTY HISTORY
Apparently prior to the property being zoned to R-1 (Single-Family Residential) in 1965, the property had two single family residences. The legal nonconforming use was maintained for many years, including where the current owner (Mr. Hoover) requested and received a Letter of Legal Nonconformity. Subsequent to then, a tenant occupied the unit without power for more than six-months, negating the legal nonconformity. Thus, the property may now contain only one single-family residence.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPERTY
The property’s depth is roughly twice its width. The principal house, at the front of the lot, sets approximately 80 feet off-of the right-of-way to the north of the existing asphalt driveway, which cuts across the length of the lot. The other house lies to the west of the front residence about 45 feet. Further west, two garages lie to either side of the driveway at the northwest and southwest corners of the property. Most of the southern portion of the property between the southwest garage and the roadway is a large expanse of lawn.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA
The house sets in a neighborhood largely constructed in the 1950’s. The house located immediately to the north is a split-level with a two-car garage. Across the street is a large ranch with a side entry garage. A small white house lies to the south. All these surrounding residences set on large lots.
Consistency with Independence for All, Strategic Plan:
An objective of the Independence for All Strategic Plan is ‘Build new housing units to fill a market need’. Although this application does not result in more housing units, it does request to preserve the second residence on the lot.
Comprehensive Plan Guiding Land Use Principles:
This site, along with all the properties in the vicinity, is designated for ‘Residential Established Neighborhoods’ by the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Such areas will feature a variety of single-family detached homes, duplexes and multi-family dwellings.
Historic and Archeological Sites:
There are no apparent historic/archeological issues with this property.
Public Utilities:
Water, sanitary sewer, and electrical services are connected to this property.
CIP Investments:
There are no City or Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) capital improvement projects (CIP) planned for this area.
Zoning:
As noted previously, this site has had single-family zoning since at least 1965. Permitted R-6 uses include single-family homes, churches, schools, home-based child-care centers, government buildings, parks, cemeteries, home gardens, and field crops. Being a Planned Unit Development (PUD) district, there will be flexibility in the number of residences allowed on this lots.
Parking and Driving Surface:
The existing legal nonconforming driveway is not being expanded.
Recommendations and decisions for proposed planned unit development rezoning and its accompanying preliminary development plan must be based on consideration of the criteria listed in Section 14-703-05-H:
1. The consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan reflects this Residential Established Neighborhood use, and it will “Protect and enhance the viability, livability, and affordability of the City’s residential neighborhoods...”
2. The consistency with the PUD standards of Section 14-902, including the statement of purpose.
This type of application is not expressly addressed in this section as its not new development, but it “ensures that development can be conveniently, efficiently and economically served by existing and planned utility services.”
3. The nature and extent of Common Open Space in the PUD.
There is no open space provided with this application.
4. The reliability of the proposals for maintenance and conservation of Common Open Space.
There is no open space provided with this application, the applicant owns the entire property.
5. The adequacy or inadequacy of the amount and function of Common Open Space in terms of the densities and dwelling types proposed in the plan.
There is no open space provided with this application.
6. The extent to which the proposed use will adversely affect the capacity of safety portions of the street network or present parking problems in the vicinity of the property. Whether adequate provision for public services, provides adequate control over vehicular traffic, and furthers the amenities of light and air, recreation, and visual enjoyment.
This proposed project will not adversely affect traffic or the street network in the vicinity of the project. No change to the site layout will occur.
7. The extent to which the proposed use will have a substantially adverse effect on adjacent property and the development or conservation of the neighborhood area.
As this property has had two residences for many years, it’s not expected this corrective rezoning will have any adverse impacts on the neighboring properties.
8. Whether potential adverse impacts have been mitigated to the maximum practical extent.
No significant impacts are expected with this application.
9. Whether the Preliminary Development Plan represents such a unique development proposal that it could not have accomplished through use of (non-PUD) conventional zoning regulations.
The existing situation with two single-family structures on one lot requires R-6/PUD zoning because R-12 zoning is for duplexes and R-18/PUD and R-30/PUD zoning permits multiple family structures.
10. The sufficiency of the terms and conditions proposed to protect the interest of the public and the residents of the PUD in the case of a plan that proposes development over a period of years.
This property will continue to be under the same ownership.
Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes:
"Case 23-125-02 – Rezoning/PUD – 2710 S. Westport Road
Staff Presentation
Brian Harker presented the case. Mr. Harker presented the Commission with a vicinity map, noting the area and surrounding zoning. He presented the Commission with an aerial map indicating the project area and explained the surrounding land uses. Mr. Harker outlined the following condition:
1. The number of dwelling units in the existing buildings is limited to the two existing single-family units.
In response to Commissioner Nesbitt’s question, Mr. Harker confirmed a church is allowed in an R-6 district.
Applicant Comments
Kelly Duckworth, 3365 Blue Ridge Blvd, stated nothing is changing at the property, this will just correct the zoning on the property.
Public Comments
Wes Epperson, 3600 Popular Ave, stated he is against this rezoning because the owners don’t keep their properties in good condition and have several outstanding code violations. He said their neighborhood is working to fight blight and this property is contributing to the blight.
Ms. Duckworth stated she’s not aware of any current code violations at the address. Mr. Harker clarified that the code violation is because it’s improperly zoned.
In response to Commissioner Preston’s question, Ms. Duckworth said during Covid the eviction courts were closed and it’s been very difficult to evict bad tenants. She stated there wasn’t much they could do, even though they knew the tenants had turned off their utilities.
Commissioner Comments
In response to Chairwoman McClain’s question, Mr. Harker confirmed this is a corrective rezoning.
In response to Commissioner L. Wiley’s question, Mr. Harker stated this rezoning does fit the City’s Strategic Plan, because it takes an available vacant house able to be lived in. Mr. Harker confirmed when the owner goes though the Rental Ready program, they will be required to fix any code violations found inside the home.
Motion
Commissioner Preston made a motion to approve Case 23-125-02 – Rezoning/PUD – 2710 S. Westport Road, with the condition as outlined by staff. Commissioner H. Wiley seconded the motion. The motion passed with five affirmative votes."